Warfie!cT 

THE  PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL 
REVIEW 

Volume  VI  April  1908  Number  2 

THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY  AND  ITS  WORK. 

The  "Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines"  derives  its  name 
from  the  ancient  conventual  church  of  Westminster  Abbey, 
situated  in  the  western  district  of  the  county  of  London.  It 
was  convened  in  the  most  ornate  portion  of  this  noble  fabric, 
the  Chapel  of  Henry  VII,  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1643; 
but,  as  the  cold  weather  of  autumn  came  on,  it  was  trans- 
ferred (October  2nd,  1643)  to  a  more  comfortable  room 
(the  so-called  "Jerusalem  Chamber")  in  the  adjoining 
Deanery.  In  that  room  it  thereafter  sat,  not  merely  to  the 
end  of  the  1163  numbered  sessions,  during  which  its  im- 
portant labors  were  transacted  (up  to  Feb.  22,  1649),  Dut 
through  some  three  years  more  of  irregular  life,  acting  as 
a  committee  for  the  examination  of  appointees  to  charges 
and  applicants  for  licensure  to  preach.  It  ultimately  van- 
ished with  the  famous  "Long  Parliament"  to  which  it  owed 
its  being.  The  last  entry  in  its  Minutes  is  dated  March 
25th,  1652. l 

The  summoning  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  was  an 
important  incident  in  the  conflict  between  the  Parliament 
and  the  king,  which  was  the  form  taken  on  English  soil  by 
the  ecclesiastico-political  struggle  by  which  all  Europe  was 

1  In  the  ordinance  convening  the  Assembly,  it  is  commissioned  to  sit 
"during  this  present  Parliament,  or  until  further  order  be  taken  by  both 
the  said  houses". 
12 


I78  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

convulsed  during  the  seventeenth  century.  It  was  the  dif- 
ficult task  of  that  century  to  work  out  to  its  legitimate  issue 
what  had  been  auspiciously  begun  in  the  great  revolution 
of  the  preceding  period ;  to  secure  from  disintegration  what 
had  been  won  in  that  revolution ;  to  protect  it  from  reaction ; 
and  to  repel  the  destructive  forces  set  in  motion  against  it 
by  the  counter-reformation.  The  new  Protestantism  was, 
during  this  its  second  age,  cast  into  a  crucible  in  the  heats 
of  which  it  everywhere  suffered  serious  losses,  even  though 
it  emerged  from  them,  wherever  it  survived,  in  greater  com- 
pactness and  purity.  The  form  which  the  struggle  took  in 
England  was  determined  by  the  peculiar  course  the  Refor- 
mation movement  had  followed  in  that  country.  There,  on 
its  official  side,  the  Reformation  was  fundamentally  a  con- 
test between  the  king  and  the  pope.  The  purpose  which 
Henry  VIII  set  before  himself  was  to  free  the  state  from 
foreign  influences  exerted  by  the  pope  through  the  church ; 
and  his  efforts  were  directed,  with  great  singleness  of  aim, 
to  the  establishment  of  his  own  authority  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  to  the  exclusion  of  that  of  the  pope.  In  these  efforts 
he  had  the  support  of  Parliament,  always  jealous  of  for- 
eign interference;  and  was  not  merely  sustained  but  urged 
on  by  the  whole  force  of  the  religious  and  doctrinal  reform 
gradually  spreading  among  the  people,  which,  however,  he 
made  it  his  business  rather  to  curb  than  to  encourage.  The 
removal  of  this  curb  during  the  reign  of  Edward  VI  con- 
cealed for  a  time  the  evils  inherent  in  the  new  powers  as- 
sumed by  the  throne.  But  with  the  accession  of  Elizabeth, 
who  had  no  sympathy  whatever  with  religious  enthusiasm, 
they  began  to  appear;  and  they  grew  ever  more  flagrant 
under  her  successors.  The  authority  in  ecclesiastical  mat- 
ters which  had  been  vindicated  to  the  throne  over  against 
the  pope,  was  increasingly  employed  to  establish  the  general 
authority  of  the  throne  over  against  the  Parliament.  The 
church  thus  became  the  instrument  of  the  crown  in  com- 
pacting its  absolutism;  and  the  interests  of  civil  liberty 
soon  rendered  it  as  imperative  to  break  the  absolutism  of  the 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    [TS    WORK 

king  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  as  it  had  ever  been  to  elimii 
the  papacy  from  the  control  of  the  English  Church. 

The  controversy  was  thus  shifted  from  I  between 

pope  and  king-  to  a  contest  between  king  and  Parliament. 
And  as  the  cause  of  the  king  had  ever  more  intimately  allied 
itself  with  that  of  the  prelatical  party  in  the  church,  which 
had  grown  more  and  more  reactionary  until  under  the  le 
ing  of  Laud  (1573-1645)  it  has  become  aggressively 
revolutionarily  so,2  the  cause  of  Puritanism,  that  is  of  pure 
Protestantism,  became  ever  more  identical  with  that  of  the 
Parliament.  When  the  parties  were  ultimately  lined  up 
the  final  struggle,  therefore,  it  was  king  and  prelate  on  the 
one  side,  against  Parliament  and  Puritan  vn  the  other.3 
The  main  issue  which  was  raised  was  a  secular  one,  the 
issue  of  representative  government  over  against  royal  abs  •- 
lutism.  This  issue  was  fought  to  a  finish,  with  the  ultimate 
result  that  there  were  established  in  England  a  constitu- 
tional monarchy  and  a  responsible  government.  There  was 
complicated  with  this  issue,  however,  also  the  issue,  no 
doubt,  at  bottom,  1  i  religious  freedom  over  against  ecclesi- 
astical tyranny,  for  it  was  impatience  with  ecclesiastical  tyr- 
anny which  gave  its  vigor  to  the  movement.  But  the  form 
which  was  openly  taken  by  the  ecclesiastical  issue  was  rather 
that  of  a  contest  between  a  pure  Protestantism  and  catholi- 
cizing reaction.  It  was  in  the  mind  of  neither  of  the  im- 
mediate contestants  in  the  main  conflict  to  free  the  church 

2  "Laud's  real  influence  was  derived  from  the  unity  of  his  purpose. 
He  directed  all  the  powers  of  a  clear,  narrow  mind  and  a  dogged  will 
to  the  realization  of  a  single  aim.  His  resolve  was  to  revise  the  Church 
of  England  to  what  he  conceived  to  be  its  real  position  as  a  branch, 
though  a  reformed  branch,  of  the  great  Catholic  Church  throughout 
the  world.  .  .  .  The  first  step  in  the  realization  of  such  a  theory 
was  the  severance  of  whatever  ties  had  hithert'>  united  the  English 
Church  to  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent.  .  .  .  His  policy 
was  no  longer  the  purely  conservative  policy  of  Parker  and  Whitgift; 
it  was  aggressive  and  revolutionary."  (Green.  Short  History,  etc., 
p.  499,  etc.) 

*  As   Mr.  J.   A.   R.   Marriott,   The   Life  <ind    Tunes  of  Lucius   C 
Viscount  Falkland,  1007,  p.  248,  puts  it  :    "On  the  side  of  King  Chi 
all  the  Romans  and  Anglicans;  on  that   of  'King   Pym'  all  the  many 
varieties  of  Puritanism." 


JcSo  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

from  the  domination  of  the  state:  they  differed  only  as  to 
the  seat  of  the  civil  authority  to  which  the  church  should  be 
subject — whether  king  or  Parliament.  This  fundamental 
controversy  lay  behind  the  conflict  over  the  organization 
of  the  subject  church  and  the  ordering  of  its  forms  of  wor- 
ship— matters  which  quickly  lost  their  importance,  there- 
fore, when  the  main  question  was  settled.  It  can  occasion 
little  surprize,  accordingly,  that,  when  the  heats  of  conflict 
were  over  and  exhaustion  succeeded  effort,  the  English  peo- 
ple were  able  to  content  themselves,  as  the  ultimate  result 
on  the  ecclesiastical  side,  with  so  slight  a  gain  as  a  mere 
act  of  toleration  (May  24,  1689). 

This  struggle  had  reached  its"  acutest  stage  when  "the 
Long  Parliament"  met,  on  the  third  of  November,  1640. 
Profoundly  distrustful  of  the  King's  sincerity,  and  deter- 
mined on  its  own  behalf  to  be  trifled  with  no  longer,  Par- 
liament was  in  no  mood  for  compromises  with  respect 
whether  to  civil  or  to  ecclesiastical  affairs.  On  the  ecclesias- 
tical side  it  was  without  concern,  indeed,  for  doctrine.  It 
was  under  no  illusions,  to  be  sure,  as  to  the  doctrinal  signifi- 
cance of  the  Catholic  reaction,  and  it  was  fully  sensible  of 
the  spread  of  Arminianism  in  high  places.4  But  although 
there  were  not  lacking  hints  of  such  a  thing,  Tract  No.  90 
had  not  yet  been  written,5  and  the  soundly  Reformed 
character  of  the  Church  of  England  as  well  in  its  official 
Articles  of  Religion  as  in  its  general  conviction  was  not  in 
dispute.     John  Milton  accurately  reflects  the  common  senti- 


4  Cf.  the  Resolutions  on  Religion  of  Feb.  24,  1629 ;  reprinted  in  Gee 
and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  1896, 
PP.  521  sq. 

6  A  precursor  of  Tract  No.  00,  however,  had  been  published  in  1634 
by  "Franciscus  a  Sancta  Clara",  a  pervert  to  Romanism  of  the  name 
of  Davenport,  entitled  "God,  Nature,  Grace,  or  a  Treatise  on  Predesti- 
nation, the  Deserts  and  Remission  of  Sin,  etc., — ubi  ad  trutinam  fidei 
Caiholicac  exaniinatur  confcssio  Anglicana  et  ad  singula  pUHCta  quid 
icncat,  qualiter  differat,  excutitur,  etc.  ...  A  new  edition  of  this 
Tract  was  called  for  in  1635.  The  reactionary  divines  meanwhile  were 
already  acting  on  such  a  theory.  For  the  state  of  the  case  in  the  later 
years  of  James'  reign  see  Bishop  Carleton's  Examination  of  Bishop 
Montague's  Appeal,  pp.  5,  49,  94- 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    its    WORK         [8l 

merit  of  the  day  when  lie  declares  that  "in  purity  of  doc- 
trine" English  Churchmen  "agreed  with  their  brethern", 

that  is,  of  the  other  Reformed  Churches,  while  yet  "in 
discipline,  which  is  the  execution  and  applying  of  the  doc- 
trine home"  they  were  "no  better  than  a  schism  from  all  the 
Reformation  and  a  sore  scandal  to  them".0  What  the  nation 
in  Commons  assembled  was  determined  to  be  rid  of  in  its 
church  establishment  was,  therefore,  briefly,  "bishoprics' 
and  "ceremonies", — what  Milton  calls  "the  irreligious  pride 
and  hateful  tyranny  of  prelates"  and  the  "senseless  cere- 
monies" which  were  only  "a  dangerous  earnest  of  sliding 
back  to  Rome'V  The  Convocation  of  1640,  continuing 
illegally  to  sit  after  the  dissolution  of  the  "Short  Parlia- 
ment", had  indeed  endeavored  to  protect  the  established 
organization  of  the  church.  It  had  framed  a  canon,  requir- 
ing from  the  whole  body  of  the  clergy  the  famous  "et 
cetera  oath,"  a  sort  of  echo  and  counterblast  to  the  "Na- 
tional Covenant"  which  had  been  subscribed  in  Scotland 
two  years  before  (Feb.  28,  1638).  By  this  oath  every 
clergyman  was  to  bind  himself  never  to  give  his  consent 
"to  alter  the  government  of  this  Church  by  archbishops, 
bishops,  deans,  and  archdeacons,  etc.,  as  it  stands  now 
established,  and  by  right  it  ought  to  stand".7  It  wras  even 
thought  worth  while  to  prepare  a  number  of  petitions  for 
Parliament  with  the  design  of  counteracting  the  effect  of 
this  act  of  convocation.  The  most  important  of  these,  the 
so-called  "London"  or  "Root-and-Branch"  petition  bore  no 
fewer  than  15,000  signatures,  and  the  personal  attendance 
of  some  1500  gentlemen  of  quality  when  it  was  presented 
to  Parliament  lent  weight  to  its  prayer.  This  was  to  the 
effect  that  "the  government  of  archbishops  and  lord 
bishops,  deans,  and  archdeacons,  etc."  (the  same  enumera- 
tion, observe,  as  in  the  "et  cetera  oath")  "with  all  its  depen- 
dencies, roots  and  branches,  may  be  abolished,  and  all  laws 
in  their  behalf  made  void,  and  the  government  according 


8  Cf.  Reformation  in  England,  etc.     1641. 

T  Wilkins.  i\\,  p.  549;  reprinted  in  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illus- 
trative of  English  Church  History,  1896,  p.  536. 


J 


THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

to  God's  word  may  be  rightly  placed  amongst  us".8  Par- 
liament, however,  was  in  no  need  of  prodding  for  this  work, 
though  it  was  for  various  reasons  disposed  to  proceed 
leisurely  in  it.  The  obnoxious  act  of  Convocation  was  at 
once  taken  up  and  rebuked.  But  even  the  Root  and  Branch 
Petition,  which  was  apparently  ready  from  the  beginning 
of  the  session,9  was  not  presented  until  Dec.  II,  and  after 
its  presentation  was  not  taken  into  formal  consideration  by 
the  House  until  the  following  February.  As  was  natural, 
differences  of  opinion  also  began  to  manifest  themselves, 
as  to  precisely  what  should  be  done  with  the  Bishops,  and 
as  to  the  precise  form  of  government  which  should  be  set  up 
in  the  church  after  they  had  been  dealt  with.  There  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  the  exactness  of  Baillie's  information10 
that  the  Commons  were  by  a  large  majority  of  their  mem- 
bership for  erecting  some  "kind  of  Presbyteries",  and  "for 
bringing  down  the  Bishop  in  all  things,  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, so  low  as  can  be  with  any  substance".  In  Parliament 
as  out  of  it  the  great  majority  of  leading  men  had  become 
Presbyterian  in  their  tendencies,  and  the  Independents 
were  for  the  present  prepared  to  act  with  them.  But  there 
was  very  little  knowledge  abroad  among  the  members  of 
Parliament  of  what  Presbytery  really  was,11  and  even  the 
most  convinced  Presbyterians  doubted  the  feasibility  of 
setting  up  the  whole  Presbyterian  system  at  once,  while 
an  influential  party  still  advocated  what  Baillie  calls12  "a 
calked  Episcopacy".13     It  still  hung  in  the  balance,  there- 


8  Rushworth,  Hist.  Coll.,  Ed.  1721,  iv.,  p.  93 ;  reprinted  in  Gee  and 
Hardy,  p.  537. 

;'  Baillie,  Letters  (Ed.  Laing),  i.,  p.  273. 

10  Baillie,  i,  p.  303. 

11  Baillie,  ii.,  p.  167. 

12  Baillie,  i.,  p.  287. 

"The  views  of  this  party  find  full  expression  in  what  Mr.  Marriott 
(The  Life  and  Times  of  Lucius  Cary,  Lord  Falkland,  1907,  p.  197)' 
calls  Falkland's  "powerful  speech"  in  opposition  to  the  "Root  and 
Branch  Bill".  It  is  printed  by  Mr.  Marriott,  pp.  198-204.  Falkland  was 
a  typical  example  of  the  party,  says  Mr.  Marriott  (p.  248),  which 
"anti-Laudian  but  not  anti-Episcopal"  felt  strongly  the  evils  of  the 
Laudian  reaction  but  were  devoted  to  the  traditional  settlement  of  the 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        1 83 

fore,  whether  Bishops  should  be  utterly  abolished ;  and 
any  hesitation  which  may  have  existed  in  the  Commons  was 
more  than  matched  in  the  House  of  Lords.  Above  all  it 
never  entered  the  thought  of  Parliament  to  set  up  in  the  " 
church  any  manner  of  government  whatever  over  which  it 
did  not  itself  retain  control.14  The  result  was  that  actual 
legislation  dragged.     Abortive  bill  after  abortive  bill  was 

church.  "He  is  a  great  stranger  in  Israel",  said  he  in  a  speech  of  Feb. 
8,  1641  (Marriott,  pp.  181-2),  who  knows  not  this  kingdom  hath  long 
labored  under  many  and  great  oppressions,  both  in  religion  and  liberty; 
and  his  acquaintance  here  is  not  great,  and  his  ingenuity  less,  who 
doth  not  both  know  and  acknowledge  that  a  great,  if  not  a  principal, 
cause  of  both  these  have  been  some  Bishops  and  their  adherents.  Mr. 
Speaker,  a  little  search  will  serve  to  find  them  to  have  been  the 
destruction  of  unity  under  pretense  of  uniformity;  to  have  brought  in 
superstition  and  scandal  under  the  titles  of  reverence  and  decency; 
to  have  defiled  our  Church  by  adorning  our  churches ;  to  have  slackened 
the  strictness  of  that  union  which  was  formerly  between  us  and  those 
of  our  religion  beyond  the  sea",  .  .  .  and  the  like.  The  remedy, 
however,  for  these  evils,  he  insisted,  was  not  to  take  away  Bishops  but 
to  reduce  them  to  their  proper  place  and  functions  as  spiritual  officers 
of  a  spiritual  body.  He  expresses  the  opinion  (Marriott,  p.  200)  that 
the  utter  destruction  of  Bishops  was  not  desired  by  "most  men",  and 
that  the  petitions  before  Parliament  were  misleading,  "because  men 
petition  for  what  they  have  not  and  not  for  what  they  have",  and  the 
like.  Yet  he  betrays  his  conviction  (p.  203)  that  "the  Scotch  govern- 
ment" is  in  store  for  England.  Similarly  Baxter  (Autobiog.,  i.,  p.  146) 
tells  us  that  Presbytery  was  "but  a  stranger"  in  England,  and  "though 
most  of  the  ministers  then  in  England  saw  nothing  in  the  Presbyterian 
way  of  practice  which  they  could  not  cheerfully  concur  in,  yet  it  was 
but  few  that  had  resolved  on  their  principles".  He  adds  that  "the 
most  that  ever  he  could  meet"  were  averse  to  the  jus  divinum  of  lay 
elders  and  "for  the  moderate  primitive  Episcopacy". 

14  It  was  this  ''trenchant  secularity"  of  Parliament  —  its  ingrained 
Erastianism — which  afterwards  made  it  so  earnest  and  persistent  for 
the  government  of  the  church  by  a  Parliamentary  Commission.  It  was 
in  this  direction  that  its  thoughts  turned  at  the  beginning  of  its  discus- 
sion of  the  settlement  of  the  church  (see  the  lucid  account  of  the 
debates  on  the  Root  and  Branch  Bill  given  by  Shaw,  i.,  p.  90  sq.,  and 
cf.  Fiennes'  speech,  pp.  35-36)  ;  and  from  this  determination  it  never 
receded.  Mr.  Marriott  (Falkland,  as  cited,  p.  208)  remarks  so  far 
justly:  "The  fact  is  that  the  dominant  sentiment  of  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment as  regards  the  Church  was  neither  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian  nor 
Independent;  it  was  Erastian.  /  Amid  infinite  variety  of  opinions,  two 
conclusions  more  and  more  clearly  emerged;  first,  that  there  must  be 
some  form  of  ecclesiastical  organization ;  and  secondly,  that  whatever 


184  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

brought  in;  now  simply  to  deprive  the  prelates  of  secular 
functions,  and  again  to  abolish  the  whole  Episcopal  system. 
It  was  not  until  the  autumn  of  1641  (Oct.  21),  that  at 
length  a  bill  excluding  the  Bishops  from  secular  activities 
was  passed  by  the  Commons  to  which  the  assent  of  the 
Lords  was  obtained  (Feb.  5,  1642)  ;15  and  not  until  another 
year  had  slipped  away  that,  under  Scotch  influence  (Aug., 
1642),  a  bill  was  finally  passed  (Jan.  26,  1643,)  abolishing 
prelacy  altogether. 

Alongside  of  these  slowly  maturing  efforts  at  negative 
legislation  there  naturally  ran  a  parallel  series  of  attempts 
to  provide  a  positive  constitution  for  the  church  after  the 
Bishops  had  been  minished  or  done  away.  It  was  recog- 
nized from  the  beginning  that  for  this  positive  legislation 
the  advice  of  approved  divines  would  be  requisite.10  Prep- 
aration for  it  took,  therefore,  much  the  form  of  proposals 
for  securing  such  advice.  From  all  sides,  within  Parliament 
and  without  it  alike,  the  suggestion  was  pressed  that  a  for- 
mal Snyod  of  Divines  should  be  convened  to  which  Parlia- 
ment should  statedly  appeal  for  counsel  in  all  questions 
which  should  occasionally  arise  in  the  process  of  the  settle- 
ment of  the  church.     And  from  the  beginning  it  was  at 

the  form  might  be,  its  government  must  be  strictly  controlled  by 
Parliament."  In  their  Erastianism  Falkland  and  Fiennes  were  wholly 
at  one. 

"This  bill  was  also  passed  by  the  King  by  a  commission  {Lords' 
Journal,  iv.,  580)  and  therefore  on  any  ground  became  a  law  of  the 
Realm  (Statutes,  v.,  138,  16  Car.  I.,  c.  27)  taking  effect  Feb.  13,  1642. 
It  may  be  read  in  Gee  and  Hardy,  p.  564. 

16  The  most  notable  early  attempt  to  secure  such  advice  was  probably 
that  taken  by  the  Lords  March  1,  1641,  in  the  appointment  of  what 
has  come  to  be  known  as  Bishop  Williams'  Committee.  See  the  full 
account  of  this  Committee  in  Shaw's  History  of  the  English  Church, 
etc.,  I.,  p.  65  sq. ;  II.,  pp.  287-294;  cf.  Mitchell,  Baird  Lectures,  pp.  100 
sq.  Similarly,  in  its  discussion  of  the  "Ministers'  petition  and  remon- 
strance" in  February,  1641,  the  Commons  sought  the  advice  of  divines 
in  its  committee.  The  desirability  of  a  standing  Assembly  of  Divines 
for  giving  stated  advice  to  Parliament  was  adverted  to  by  more  than 
one  speaker  in  the  course  of  the  discussion  of  the  Root  and  Branch 
Bill  which  was  introduced  on  May  27,  1641 :  on  the  government  to  be 
set  up  after  the  abolishing  of  the  prelates  the  debaters  felt  the  need  of 
advice  from  such  a  body. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        I1S5 

least  hinted  that,  ill  framing'  its  advice,  such  a  Synod  might 

well  bear  in  mind  wider  interests  than  merely  the  internal 
peace  of  the  Church  of  England;  that  it  might  fur  example, 
consider  the  advantage  of  securing  along  with  that  a  greater 
harmony  with  the  other  Reformed  Churches,  particularly 
the  neighboring  Church  of  Scotland.  It  was  accordingly 
with  this  wider  outlook  in  mind  that  the  proposition  was 
given  explicit  shape  in  "the  Grand  Remonstrance"  which 
was  drawn  up  in  the  Commons  on  Nov.  8,  1641,  and,  having 
been  passed  on  Nov.  22,  was  presented  to  the  King  on  Dec. 
11.  This  document  began  by  avowing  the  intention  of  Par- 
liament to  "reduce  within  bounds  that  exhorbitant  power 
which  the  prelates  had  assumed  unto  themselves",  and  to  set 
up  "  a  juster  discipline  and  government  in  the  Church". 
It  proceeded  thus  (§  186)  :  "And  the  better  to  effect  the 
intended  reformation,  we  desire  there  may  be  a  general 
synod  of  the  most  grave,  pious,  learned,  and  judicious  di- 
vines of  this  island ;  assisted  with  some  from  foreign  parts, 
professing  the  same  religion  with  us,  who  may  consider  of 
all  things  necessary  for  the  peace  and  good  government  of 
the  Church,  and  represent  the  results  of  their  consultations 
unto  Parliament,  to  be  there  allowred  of  and  confirmed, 
and  receive  the  stamp  of  authority,  thereby  to  find  passage 
and  obedience  throughout  the  kingdom".17  In  pursuance 
of  this  design,  the  Commons  engaged  themselves  desultorily 
from  the  ensuing  February  (1642)  in  preparations  for  con- 
vening such  a  synod.  The  names  of  suitable  ministers  to 
sit  in  it  were  canvassed;  selection  was  made  of  two  divines 
from  each  English  and  one  from  each  Welsh  county,  two 
from  the  Channel  Islands  and  from  each  University,  and 
five  from  London  ;1S  and  a  bill  was  passed  through  both 
Houses  (  May  <;  to  June  30,  1642)  commanding  the  Assem- 
bly so  constituted  to  convene  on  July  1st,  1642.19  The 
King's  assent  failing,  however,  this  bill  lapsed,  and  was 
superceded  by  another  to  the  same  general  effect,  and  that 

17  Rushworth,  ed.  1721,  iv.,  p.  438;  cf.  Gee  and  Hardy,  p.  561. 

18  Commons'  Journal,  ii.,  pp.  524,  535-564. 

"  Lords'  Journal,  v.,  p.  84;  Commons'  Journal,  ii.,  p.  287. 


l86  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

by  yet  another,  and  yet  another,  which  went  the  same  way, 
until  finally  a  sixth  bill  was  prepared,  read  in  the  Commons 
as  an  ordinance  on  May  13,  1643,  anc*  having  been  agreed  to 
by  the  Lords  on  June  12,  1643,  was  Put  mto  effect  without 
the  King's  assent.    By  this  ordinance,20  the  Divines,  in  num- 
ber 121,  supplemented  by  ten  peers  and  twenty  members  of 
the  House  of  Commons  (40  being  a  quorum)  were  required 
"to  meet  and  assemble  themselves  at  Westminster,  in  the 
Chapel  called  King  Henry  the  VII's  Chapel,  on  the  first  da^ 
of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  One  thousand  six  hundred 
and  forty  three,"  and  thereafter  "from  time  to  time  to  sit, 
and  be  removed  from  place  to  place"  and  to  "confer  and 
to   treat  among   themselves   of   such   matters   and   things 
touching  and  concerning  the  Liturgy,  Discipline,  and  Gov-^ 
ernment  of  the   Church  of   England,   or  the   vindicating 
and  clearing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  same  from  all  false 
aspersions  and  misconstructions,  as  shall  be  proposed  unto 
them  by  both  or  either  of  the  said  Houses  of  Parliament, 
and  no  other;  and  to  deliver  their  opinions  and  advices  of, 
or  touching  the  matters  aforesaid,  as  shall  be  most  agreeable 
to  the  word  of  God,  to  both  or  either  of  the  said  Houses, 
from  time  to  time,  in  such  manner  and  sort  as  by  both  or 
either  of  the  said  Houses  of  Parliament  shall  be  required; 
and  the  same  not  to  divulge  by  printing,  writing,  or  other- 
wise, without  the  consent  of  both  or  either  House  of  Par- 
liament". 

The  prominence  given  in  this  ordinance  to  the  reorganiza-  ^ 
tion  of  the  government  of  the  Church  of  England  as  the 
primary  matter  upon  which  the  Assembly  thus  instituted 
should  be  consulted  was  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
but  should  not  pass  without  specific  notice.  And,  we  should 
further  note,  next  to  the  reorganization  of  the  government 
of  the  church  the  reform  of  its  liturgy  was,  as  was  natural 


20  Rushworth,  ed.  1692,  II.,  iii.  (Vol.  V.),  p.  337:  it  is  printed  in  the 
preliminary  materials  gathered  at  the  opening  of  the  Scottish  editions 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith;  also  in  the  opening  pages  of  A.  F.  Mitchell, 
The  Westminster  Assembly,  etc.  (The  Baird  Lecture  for  1882),  ed.  2, 
1897,  pp.  xiii.-xvi. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK         I S7 

in  the  circumstances,  to  be  the  Assembly's  care.  Doctrinal 
matters  lay  wholly  in  the  background.  ''In  the  heading  of 
the  ordinance  it  is  described  with  exactness  as  an  ordinance 
"for  the  calling  of  an  Assembly  of  learned  and  godly 
Divines,  and  others,  to  be  consulted  with  by  the  Parliament, 
for  the  settling*  of  the  Government  and  Liturgy  of  the  ^ 
Church  of  England" ;  while  it  is  only  added  as  something 
clearly  secondary  in  importance  that  its  labors  may  be 
directed  also  to  "the  vindicating  and  clearing  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  said  Church  from  false  aspersions  and  interpreta- 
tions". In  the  body  of  the  ordinance  the  occasion  of  calling 
such  an  Assembly  is  detailed.  It  was  because  "many  things 
remained  in  the  Liturgy,  Discipline,  and  Government  of  the 
Church  which  did  necessarily  require  a  farther  and  more 
perfect  reformation  than  as  yet  hath  been  attained";  and 
more  specifically  because  Parliament  had  arrived  at  the 
determination  that  the  existing  prelatical  government  should 
be  taken  away  as  evil,  "a  great  impediment  to  reforma- 
tion and  growth  of  religion  and  very  prejudicial  to  the 
state  and  government  of  this  kingdom".  Thejmme_j)ur-  ^ 
po_s£  for  calling  the  Assembly  is  therefore  declared  to  be 
"to  consult  and  advise"  with  Parliament,  as  it  may  be  re- 
quired to  do,  in  the  Parliament's  efforts  to  substitute  for  the 
existing  prelatical  government  of  the  Church,  such  a  gov- 
ernment "as  may  be  most  agreeable  to  God's  holy  word, 
and  most  apt  to  procure  and  preserve  the  peace  of  the 
Church  at  home,  and  nearer  agreement  with  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  other  Reformed  Churches  abroad".  It  is  a 
clearly  secondary  duty  laid  on  it  also  "to  vindicate  and  clear 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  from  all  false  calum- 
nies and  aspersions".  It  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that 
this  emphasis  on  the  reformation  first  of  the  government  and 
next  of  the  liturgy  of  the  church,  merely  reflects  the  actual 
situation  of  affairs.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England 
was  everywhere  recognized  as  in  itself  soundly  Reformed, 
and  needing  only  to  be  protected  from  corrupting  misin- 
terpretations; its  government  and  worship,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  conceived  to  be  themselves  sadly  in  need  of 


156  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

reformation,  in  the  interests  of  adjustment  to  the  will  of 
God  as  declared  in  Scripture,  and  of  harmonizing  with  the 
practice  of  the  sister  Reformed  Churches.  Of  these  sister 
Reformed  Churches,  that  of  Scotland  is  particularly  singled 
out  for  mention  as  the  one  into  "a  nearer  agreement"  with 
the  government  of  which  it  were  especially  desirable  that 
the  new  government  of  the  Church  of  England  should  be 
brought.  But  this  appears  on  the  face  of  the  ordinance 
merely  as  a  measure  of  general  prudence  and  propriety — 
I  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  any  formal  uniformity  in 
religion  with  Scotland  was  to  be  sought.  It  was  with  the 
/reorganization  of  the  Church  of  England  alone  that  Parlia- 
ment was  at  this  time  concerned;  and  the  Assembly  called 
"to  consult  and  advise"  with  it  in  this  work,  had  no  function 
beyond  the  bounds  of  that  Church.- 

What  is  of  most  importance  to  observe  in  this  ordinance, 
however,  is  the  care  that  is  taken  to  withhold  all  indepen- 
pendent  powers  from  the  Assembly  it  convened  and  to  con- 
fine it  to  a  purely  advisory  function.  Parliament  had  no  in- 
tention whatever  of  erecting  by  its  own  side  an  ecclesiastical 
legislature  to  which  might  be  committed  the  work  of  reor- 
ganizing the  church,  leaving  Parliament  free  to  give  itself 
to  the  civil  affairs  of  the  nation.  What  it  proposed  to  do, 
was  simply  to  create  a  permanent  Committee  of  Divines 
which  should  be  continuously  accessible  to  it,  and  to  which 
it  could  resort  from  time  to  time  for  counsel  in  its  prose- 
cution of  the  task  of  reconstituting  the  government,  discip- 
line and  worship  of  the  Church  of  England.21  Parliament 
was  determined  to  hold  the  entire  power,  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical alike,  in  its  own  hands ;  and  it  took  the  most  extreme 
pains  to  deny  all  initiation  and  all  jurisdiction  to  the  Assem- 
bly of  Divines  it  was  erecting,22  and  to  limit  it  strictly  to 


21  "This  is  no  proper  Assembly",  remarks  Baillie  (ii.,  p.  180),  meaning 
that  it  has  no  such  powers  as  belonged  to  the  Scottish  General  Assem- 
bly:  "but  a  meeting  called  by  the  Parliament  to  advyse  them  in  all 
things  they  are  asked."  As  Dr.  Leishman  puts  it,  the  Westminster 
Assembly  "in  the  language  of  our  time  was  rather  a  Parliamentary 
Commission"  (The  Westminster  Directory,  etc.,  1901,  p.  x). 

23  Cf.  e.  g.  the  explicit  action  of  the  Lords  to  this  effect,  Lords'  Jour- 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        189 

supplying  Parliament  with  advice  upon  specific  propositions 

occasionally  submitted  to  it.  The  ordinance  is  described  in 
its  heading  as  an  ordinance  for  the  calling  of  an  Assembly 
"to  be  consulted  with  by  the  Parliament".  And  in  the  body 
of  the  ordinance  the  function  of  the  Divines  is  described 
as  "to  consult  and  advise  of  such  matters  and  things,  touch- 
ing the  premises" — that  is  to  say,  the  Liturgy,  Discipline 
and  Government  of  the  Church,  together  with  the  clearing 
and  vindicating  of  its  doctrine, — "as  shall  be  proposed  unto 
them  by  both  or  either  of  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  and  to 
give  their  advice  and  counsel  therein  to  both  or  either  of 
said  Houses,  when,  and  as  often  as,  they  shall  be  thereunto 
required".  And  again,  with  perhaps  superfluous  but  cer- 
tainly significant  emphasis,  in  the  empowering  clauses,  the 
assembled  Divines  are  given  "power  and  authority,  and  are 
hereby  likewise  enjoined,  from  time  to  time  during  the 
present  Parliament,  or  until  further  order  be  taken  by  both 
the  said  Houses,  to  confer  and  treat  among  themselves 
of  such  matters  and  things,  touching  and  concerning  the 
Liturgy,  Discipline,  and  Government  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, or  the  vindicating  and  clearing  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
same  from  all  false  aspersions  and  misconceptions,  as  shall 
be  proposed  unto  them  by  both  or  either  of  the  said  Houses 
of  Parliament,  and  no  other" ;  and  are  further  enjoined  "to 
deliver  their  opinions  and  advices  of,  or  touching  the  mat- 
ters aforesaid,  as  shall  be  most  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God,  to  both  or  either  of  the  said  Houses,  from  time  to  time, 
in  such  manner  and  sort  as  by  both  or  either  of  the  said 
Houses  shall  be  required;  and  the  same  not  to  divulge,  by 
printing,  writing,  or  otherwise  without  the  consent  of  both 
or  either  House  of  Parliament".  To  make  assurance  trebly 
certain  the  ordinance  closes  with  this  blanket  clause:  "Pro- 
vided always,  That  this  Ordinance,  or  anything  therein  con- 
tained, shall  not  give  unto  the  persons  aforesaid,  or  any  of 
them,  nor  shall  they  in  this  Assembly  assume  to  exercise  any 
jurisdiction,  power,  or  authority  ecclesiastical  whatsoever, 


nal,  vi.,  p.  84,  to  which  the  closing  words  of  the  Ordinance  are  con- 
formed. 


190  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

or  any  other  power  than  is  herein  particularly  expressed." 
The  effect  of  these  regulations  was  of  course  to  make  the 
Westminster  Assembly  merely  the  creature  of  Parliament 
They  reflect  the  Erastian  temper  of  Parliament,  which, 
intent  though  it  was  upon  vindicating  the  civil  liberty  of  the 
subject,  never  caught  sight  of  the  vision  of  a  free  Church 
in  a  free  State,  but  not  unnaturally  identified  the  cause  of 
freedom  with  itself  and  would  have  felt  it  a  betrayal  of 
liberty  not  to  have  retained  all  authority,  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical alike,  in  its  own  hands  as  the  representatives  of  the 
nation.  With  it,  the  great  conflict  in  progress  was  that 
between  King  and  Parliament ;  and  what  it  was  chiefly  con- 
cerned with  was  the  establishment  of  Parliamentary  govern- 
ment. In  its  regulations  with  respect  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  however,  it  did  not  go  one  step  beyond  what  it 
had  been  accustomed  to  see  practiced  in  England  with  re- 
gard to  the  civil  control  of  ecclesiastical  assemblies.  The 
effect  of  these  regulations  was,'  in  fact,  merely  to  place  this 
Assembly  with  respect  to  its  independence  of  action,  in  the 
same  position  relatively  to  Parliament,  which  had  been  pre- 
viously occupied  by  the  Convocations  of  the  Church  of 
England  relatively  to  the  crown,  as  regulated  by  25  Henry 
VIII  (1533/4),  c.  19,  revived  by  1  Eliz.  (1538/9),  c.  1. 
s.  z.,  and  expounded  by  Coke,  Reports,  xiii,  p.  72. 23  And 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  stringent  as  these  regulations 
were,  they  denied  to  the  Assembly  only  initiation  and  au- 


23  Even  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  (Art.  xxi.)  declare  that  "General 
Councils  may  not  be  gathered  together  but  by  the  commandment  and 
will  of  princes".  This  was  the  "law  of  creeds"  in  England.  Baillie 
(I.,  pp.  95-96)  even  tells  us  that  when  the  question  was  mooted  in 
Scotland  whether  a  lawful  Assembly  might  be  held  without  or  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  will  of  the  Crown,  he  was  himself  in  grave  doubt,  and 
could  find  no  example  of  a  National  Assembly  meeting  against  the  will 
of  the  supreme  magistrate,  rightly  professing,  either  in  antiquity  or 
among  the  Reformed  Churches.  Scotland  soon  supplied  him  with  an 
example.  The  doubts  of  Baillie  in  Scotland,  the  attitude  of  Parliament 
in  England,  are  incident  to  the  principle  of  establishment,  and  it  would 
seem  can  finally  be  rid  of  only  in  free  churches.  We  must  bear  in  mind, 
however,  that  from  the  beginning  the  Scotch  Church  claimed  and 
exercised  autonomy  in  spiritualia. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        191 

thority  :  they  left  it  perfectly  free  in  its  deliberations  and 
conclusions.'-'4  The  limitation  of  its  discussions  to  topics 
committed  to  it  by  Parliament,  moreover,  proved  no  griev- 
ance, in  the  face  of  the  very  broad  commitments  which  were 
ultimately  made  to  it ;  and  its  incapacity  to  give  legal  effect 
to  its  determinations — which  it  could  present  only  as  ''hum- 
ble advices"  to  Parliament — deprived  them  of  none  of  their 
intrinsic  value,  and  has  in  no  way  lessened  their  ultimate 
influence. 

In  pursuance  of  this  ordinance,  and  in  defiance  of  an 
inhibitory  proclamation  from  the  King,  the  Assembly  duly 
met  on  July  1st,  1643.  ^  was  constituted  in  the  chapel  of 
Henry  VII  after  there  had  been  preached  to  its  members 
in  the  Abbey  by  Dr.  William  Twisse,  who  had  been  named 
by  Parliament  prolocutor  to  the  Assembly,  a  sermon  which 
was  listened  to  by  a  great  concourse,  including  both  Houses 
of  Parliament.  Sixty-nine  members  were  in  attendance  on 
the  first  day;  and  that  seems  to  have  thereafter  been  the 
average  daily  attendance.25  No  business  was  transacted  on 
this  day,  however,  but  adjournment  was  taken  until  July  6 : 
and  it  was  not  until  July  8  that  work  was  begun,  after  each 
member  had  made  a  solemn  protestation  "to  maintain  noth- 
ing in  point  of  doctrine  but  what  he  believed  to  be  most 
agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  nor  in  point  of  discipline  but 
what  may  make  most  for  God's  glory  and  the  peace  and  good 
of  His  Church".  The  first  task  committed  to  the  Assembly 
was  the  revision  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  and  it  was 
engaged  upon  this  labor  intermittently  until  Oct.  12,  at 
which  date  it  had  reached  the   16th  Article.20     That  the 

34  The  independence  of  the  spirit  of  the  Assembly  is  illustrated  by  the 
conflict  which  arose  between  the  Assembly  and  Parliament  in  the  matter 
of  the  exclusion  of  the  scandalous  from  the  Lord's  Supper  and  in  the 
much  broader  matter  of  the  autonomy  of  the  Church.  In  these  matters, 
the  Assembly  exceeded  its  commission  and  offered  unsought  advice  to 
Parliament,  much  to  the  distaste  of  that  body;  and  even  declined  to 
act  on  the  determinations  of  Parliament. 

20  Baillie,  ii.,  p.  108:  "Ordinarilie  there  will  be  present  above  three- 
score of  their  divines." 

"The  House  of  Commons  three  years  afterwards  (Dec.  10,  1646) 
sent  an  order  to  the  Assembly  asking  to  have  sent  up  to  it  "what  is 


ig2  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

Assembly  was  thus  put  for  its  first  work  upon  the  least 
pressing  of  the  tasks  which  were  expected  of  it, — "the  vindi- 
cating and  clearing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land from  false  aspersions  and  misconstructions"  —  may 
have  been  due  to  the  concurrence  of  many  causes.  It  may 
have  been  that  in  its  engrossment  with  far  more  immediately 
pressing  duties  than  even  the  settlement  of  the  future  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  of  England,  Parliament  had  had 
no  opportunity  to  prepare  work  for  the  Assembly.  Beyond 
question,  however,  the  main  cause  was  the  premonition  of 
that  change  in  the  posture  of  affairs  by  which  the  work  of 
the  Assembly  was  given  a  new  significance  and  a  much 
wider  range  than  were  contemplated  when  it  was  called, 
and  an  international  rather  than  a  merely  national  bearing. 
It  was  natural  that  Parliament  should  hold  it  back  from  its 
more  important  labors  until  the  arrangements  already  in 
progress  for  this  change  in  the  scope  of  its  work  were  per- 
fected. It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  determina- 
tions of  the  Assembly  were  essentially  altered — or  that 
Parliament  supposed  they  would  be — by  the  change  in  the 
bearing  of  its  work  to  which  we  allude.  It  is  quite  true  that 
in  the  course  of  the  debates  which  were  subsequently  held, 
sufficient  confusion  of  mind  was  occasionally  exhibited 
on  the  part  of  many  in  the  Assembly  to  make  us  thank- 
ful that  these  debates  were  actually  regulated  by  the  firm 
guidance  of  men  of  experience  in  the  matters  under  discus- 
finished  upon  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England",  its  purpose  being 
to  employ  them  in  its  negotiations  with  the  King.  After  some  demur- 
ring, and  after  attaching  to  them  an  explanatory  preface,  the  Divines 
sent  them  up  on  April  29,  1647.  For  its  own  use  Parliament  omitted 
the  Preface  and  Article  viii  on  the  Creeds;  and  they  were  printed 
in  this  form  in  a  tract  entitled  The  Four  Bills,  sent  to  the  King  to 
the  Isle  of  Wight  to  be  passed,  which  was  published  March  20,  1648. 
It  is  in  this  Parliamentary  form  that  they  have  usually  been  reprinted, 
e.  g.  in  Hall's  Harmony  of  the  Protestant  Confessions;  Neal's  History 
of  the  Puritans,  App.  vii. ;  Stoughton's  History  of  the  Church  of  the 
Commonwealth,  App.  p.  228  sq.  The  lacking  Preface  and  Art.  viii. 
are  printed  by  Drs.  Mitchell  and  Struthers,  Minutes,  pp.  54*  "2-  The 
complete  text,  with  all  the  changes  made  by  the  Divines  marked,  may 
be  found  in  App.  iv.,  pp.  342,  sq.,  of  E.  Tyrrell  Green's  The  Thirty-Nine 
Articles  and  the  Age  of  the  Reformation,  London,  1896. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK         1 93 

sion.-7  But  the  known  convictions  of  the  members  of  the 
Assembly,  evidenced  in  their  printed  works  no  less  than  in 
the  debates  of  the  Assembly,  render  it  altogether  unlikely 
that  had  they  been  called  upon,  as  it  was  at  first  contem- 
plated they  should  be,  to  advise  Parliament  unassisted  and 
merely  with  respect  to  the  settlement  of  the  Church  of 
England,  they  would  have  failed  to  fight  their  way  to 
conclusions  quite  similar  to  those  they  actually  reached.28 
Nevertheless  the  alteration  of  the  bearing  of  their  work 
from  a  merely  national  to  international  significance,  obvi- 
ously not  only  gave  it  a  far  wider  compass  than  was  at  first 
contemplated,  but  quite  revolutionized  its  spirit  and  threw  it 
into  such  changed  relations  as  to  give  it  a  totally  different 
character. 

This  great  change  in  the  function  which  the  Assembly 
was  to  serve,  was  brought  about  by  the  stage  reached  by 
the  civil  conflict  in  the  summer  of  1643.  The  Parliamentary 
cause  had  sunk  to  its  lowest  ebb ;  and  it  had  become  impera- 
tive to  obtain  the  assistance  of  the  Scots.    But  the  assistance 


27  Cf.  Baillie,  ii.,  p.  177  (May  9,  1644),  who,  after  remarking  on  the 
wide  differences  of  opinion  which  emerged  in  the  course  of  debate, 
cries  out :  "Had  not  God  sent  Mr.  Henderson,  Mr.  Rutherford  and  Mr. 
Gillespie  among  them,  I  see  not  that  ever  they  could  have  agreed  to  any 
settled  government."  The  task  of  establishing  a  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment in  a  church  without  any  experience  of  it,  in  the  face  of  violent 
Independent  and  Erastian  opposition,  was  no  light  one :  and  it  was 
altogether  natural  that  the  English  divines  whose  Presbyterianism  was 
purely  theoretical,  illuminated  by  no  practice,  should  have  been  much 
disabled  by  varying  views  among  themselves  as  to  the  best  methods  of 
procedure. 

28  Even  Dr.  Shaw  allows  (A  History  of  the  English  Church  during 
.  .  .  1640-1660,  p.  3)  that  "it  is  probable  that,  without  the  necessity 
of  calling  in  Scotland,  and  of  adopting  the  Solemn  League  and  Cove- 
nant, the  Long  Parliament  would  have  resolved  upon  a  system  of 
church  government  that  might  be  called  Presbyterian".  And  when 
he  adds  "though  in  a  sense  very  different  from  that  usually  conveyed 
by  the  term",  this  caution  need  not  be  objected  to:  it  is  clear  enough 
that  the  English,  even  in  the  Assembly  and  much  more  in  Parliament, 
had  much  to  learn  as  to  what  the  Presbyterianism  which  they  were 
intent  on  setting  up  was  and  what  it  carried  with  it.  Scotch  influence 
was  necessary,  however,  not  to  make  them  Presbyterians,  but  to  make 
them  intelligent  Presbyterians. 

13 


I     -  N    THEOLOGICAL 

I  only  at  the  price  of  a  elv 

-     -::cal  alliance.    7       5     I  :h  had  been  far  e 

D 

.  tbc  absol.  had 

been  practiced  by  the  Stuart  Kings  in  ecclesiastical  ma:: 
ssertmg  _ 

:  Engl:.  had 

rre  ever  inc  tbe   same 

:  Scotland  also;  and 
;al  instrun:-  :heir 

o  order  to  secure  their  ends  in  Scotland. 
:  church  and  state  in  Scotland  were  not 
those  which  obtained  in  England.29     In 
tbera  kingdom  from  the  beginning  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, the  ideal  of  a  free  church  in  a  free  state  had  been  sedu- 
lously cherished  and  repeatedly  given  effect;  and  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  was  in  representative  courts  which 
:ied  and  exercised  their  own  independent  spiritual  juris- 
diction.    The  interference  of  the  king  with  the  working  of 
this  ecclesiastical  machinery  was.  therefore,  widely  rr-ented 
as  mere  tyranny.    And  as  it  was  employed  precisely  for  the 
purpose  of  ::g  the  ecclesiastical  organization  which 

had  been  established  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  of 
nilating  the  Scottish  Church  in  government  and  mode 
strip  (doctrine  was  not  in  question30)  to  the  model 


3  Cf.  the  Information  from  the  Estates  of  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland 

i  of  Enghnd,  1640:   "The  second  error  ariseth  from  not 

knowing  our  laws  and  so  measuring  us  with  your  line.     .     .     .     We 

neither  know  nor  will  examine  if  according  to  your  laws  these  may 

be  accounted  derogatory  to  royal  authority.     But  it  is  most  sure  and 

md  records  of  our  laws     .     .     .     thai 
have  proceeded  at  this  time  upon  no  other  ground  than  on  laws  and 
practice  of  this  kingdom  never  before  questioned,  but  inviolably  ob- 
i  as  the  only  rule  of  our  government"     The  whole  matter  is 
y  Dr.  A.  F.  Mitchell  in  his  Baird  Lectures  on  The 
Ed.  2.  pp.  289-91 ;  cf.  \V.  Beveridge,  A  Short 
stminster  Assembly,  pp.  116 -:__  ritual 

:    also   Thomas   Brown,   Church 
1891 ;  J.  Macpherson,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  in  Scottish  Theology, 
1903,  Lee*  ■  I  6. 

"C:  I  1616,  which  the  Westminster  Divines 

z  their  own  symbol.    On  these  articles, 


-  considered  by  the 

:    - 

; 

:    . 

demerit 

ing 

only  tyrannical  in  form  but  revolutionar 

.-rsmifii:^ 

:;    :--r   i   :    --:  .      :r-".i:t   i^-rt—ivr'.     V: -:  -  .  --.  in  Engiar  : 

on  a  violently  reactionary  potiVr 

ur.i.:tri   .      i   tr-r    ir.i  :r.   M:*_ir.i    :.i„-::r.j    i;i_-   i.      =: 

j 

id  become. 

s: :.-.-.     if  :r  ■    -     _ 

ir>:r.  :"-.e   T.v       .         >::i!i'I         :he  rr.err  :-  ■:Im:iri:r.   ::' 

... 
;erf — : :   i    ::  —  ;.: 

;     -       r 
::r:e    :::  :"/.t:r   :Y. '"-.;-;:;    :hi:  -.-.-;-_::'.-   :  ■-:::  —     r?  — e* 
■ 

read  in  the  Cathedral  Church        - 


- 

- 

-    ■ 
::'  r:Tf.:.r5:       Lr  :-:   :     i 

sorte  of  tbe  people,  noost  of  d»em  w:-; 

e   :r   :"r.i:   ::     --:   :   r   :;    k-:-    r'.irt.    :    -    :.--.    :•;::-.-    r ;  - ;     -5-;'- 
;:  :  ~  t  ;r    ".:_..-     r  _  *  - .  ~  .:  -    ir.  2   :  _ " :  ~  - c    ~-  c  -:•  i   f  u :  ■    i~    _~  :    "  ~ 


I96  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

serving-maids  began  such  a  tumult,  as  was  never  heard  of 
since  the  Reformation  of  our  nation" ;  and  thus  "the  serv- 
ing-maids of  Edinburgh" — symbolized  in  the  picturesque 
legend  of  Jennie  Geddes  and  her  stool,  which  has  almost 
attained  the  dignity  of  history — "began  to  draw  down  the 
Bishop's  pride  when  it  was  at  the  highest".33  The  move- 
ment thus  inaugurated  ran  rapidly  forward :  as  Archbishop 
Spottiswoode  is  said  to  have  exclaimed,  "all  that  they  had 
been  doing  these  thirty  years  past  was  thrown  down  at 
once".  The  Scots  immediately  reclaimed  their  ecclesiastical, 
and,  in  doing  that,  also  their  civil  liberties ;  eradicated  at 
once  every  trace  of  the  prelacy  which  had  been  imposed  on 
them,  and  restored  their  Presbyterian  government;  secured 
the  simplicity  of  their  worship  and  reinstated  the  strictness 
of  their  discipline ;  and  withal  bound  themselves  by  a  great 
oath — "the  National  Covenant"34 — to  the  perpetual  preser- 
vation of  their  religious  settlement  in  its  purity. 

The  Scots  to  whom  the  English  Parliament  made  its 
appeal  for  aid  in  the  summer  of  1643,  were,  then,  "a  cove- 
nanted nation".  They  were  profoundly  convinced  that  the 
root  of  all  the  ills  they  had  been  made  to  suffer  through  two 
reigns,  culminating  in  the  insufferable  tyranny  of  the  Laud- 
ian  domination,  was  to  be  found  in  the  restless  ambition  of 
the  English  prelates ;  and  they  had  once  for  all  determined 
to  make  it  their  primary  end  to  secure  themselves  in  the 
permanent  peaceful  possession  of  their  own  religious  estab- 

noyse  and  hubbubb  in  the  church,  that  not  any  one  could  either  heare  or 
be  hearde"  (History  of  Scots  Affairs  from  1637  to  1641.  3  vols. 
Spalding  Club.  Aberdeen.  1841.  Vol.  i.,  p.  7).  Cf.  [Balcanquhal], 
A  Large  Declaration  concerning  the  late  Tumults  in  Scotland  from  their 
first  Original,  etc.  London,  1639,  p.  23.  To  understand  this  scene  we 
must  bear  in  mind  the  division  which  obtained  in  Scotland  of  the 
Sabbath  service  into  the  Reader's  and  the  Minister's  Service.  The 
Minister  often  entered  the  church  only  when  his  own  part  of  the 
service  began ;  and  it  had  become  the  custom  of  "the  better  sorte"  also 
to  enter  at  that  time.  Meanwhile  their  places  were  kept  for  them  by 
their  maids.  The  congregation  for  the  first  half  of  the  service  was, 
therefore,  chiefly  made  up  of  "waiting  maides". 

"Baillie,  i.,  p.  95. 

M  The  National  Covenant  is  printed  in  the  current  editions  of  the 
Scottish  "Confession  of  Faith",  etc. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK         UJJ 

lishment.  The  Parliamentary  Commissioners  came  to  them, 
indeed,  seeking  aid  in  their  political  struggle  and  with  their 
minds  set  on  a  civil  compact:  they  found  the  Scots,  how- 
ever, equally  determined  that  any  bond  into  which  they  en- 
tered should  deal  primarily  with  the  ecclesiastical  situation 
and  should  be  fundamentally  a  religious  engagement.  "The 
English",  says  Baillie,3-'  "were  for  a  Civill  League,  we  for 
a  religious  Covenant.".  The  Scots,  indeed,  had  nothing  to 
gain  from  the  alliance  which  was  offered  them,  unless  they 
gained  security  for  their  church  from  future  English  inter- 
ference ;  while  on  the  other  hand  by  entering  into  it  they 
risked  everything  which  they  had  at  such  great  cost  recov- 
ered for  themselves.  Their  own  liberties  were  already 
regained;  the  cause  of  Parliament  in  England,  on  the  con- 
trary, hung  in  the  gravest  doubt.  It  really  was  an  act  of 
high  chivalry,  to  call  it  by  no  more  sacred  name,  for  them 
to  cast  in  their  lot  at  this  crisis  with  the  Parliament;  and 
more  than  one  Scot  must  have  cried  to  himself  during  the 
ensuing  years,  "Surely  it  was  a  great  act  of  faith  in  God, 
and  hudge  courage  and  unheard  of  compassion,  that  moved 
our  nation  to  hazard  their  own  peace  and  venture  their  lives 
and  all,  for  to  save  a  people  so  irrecoverablie  ruined  both 
in  their  own  and  all  the  world's  eyes".30  On  the  other  hand. 
the  Scots  demanded  nothing  more  than  that  the  Parliament 
should  explicitly  bind  itself  to  the  course  it  was  on  its  own 
account  loudly  professing  to  be  following,  and  had  already 
declared,  in  the  ordinance  (for  example)  by  which  it  had 
called  to  its  aid  an  advisory  council  of  Divines,87  to  be  the 
obiect  it  was  setting  before  itself  in  the  reconstruction  of 


n.,  p.  90. 

M  So  Baillie  soliloquizes,  Letters,  ii.,  pp.  99-100:    and  so  all  men  at  the 
time  judged,  as  even  Mr.  J.  A.  R.  Marriot  allows.    "Baillie  is  justified", 
says  he  (The  Life  and  Times  of  Lucius  Cary,  Visd  unt  1 
p.  303)  "in  taking  credit  for  the  Scots  in  coming  to  the  assistance  of  a 
ruined  cause." 

r  "Such  a  government  shall  be  settled  in  the  Church  a?  may  be  .  .  . 
most  apt  to  procure  and  preserve  .  .  .  nearer  agreement  with  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  other  Reformed  Churches  abroad."  Thi-> 
already  promised  in  effect  the  establishment  of  a  Presbyterian  system  in 
England. 


I98  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

the  English  Church.  All  that  was  asked  of  the  Parliament, 
in  point  of  fact,  was,  thus,  that  it  should  give  greater  pre- 
cision, and  binding  force  under  the  sanction  of  a  solemn 
covenant,  to  its  repeatedly  declared  purpose.  That  the  Par- 
liamentary Commissioners  boggled  over  this  demand,  espe- 
cially if  it  were  in  the  effort  "to  keep  a  doore  open  in 
England  to  Independencie",38  was  scarcely  worthy  of  them, 
and  boded  ill  for  the  future.  That  they  yielded  in  the  end 
and  the  Scots  had  their  way  may  have  been,  no  doubt,  the 
index  of  their  necessities;  but  it  would  seem  to  have  been 
already  given  in  the  logic  of  the  situation.  To  hold  out  on 
this  issue  were  to  stultify  the  whole  course  of  the  Long  Par- 
liament heretofore.  The  result  was,  accordingly,  "the  Sol- 
emn League  and  Covenant." 

By  this  pact,  the  two  nations  bound  themselves  to  each 
other  in  a  solemn  league  and  covenant,  the  two  terms  being 
employed  apparently  as  designating  the  pact  respectively 
from  the  civil  and  the  religious  sides.  This  "league  and 
covenant"  was  sworn  to  in  England  by  both  Houses  of 
Parliament,  as  also  by  their  servant-body,  the  Assembly  of 
Divines,  and  in  Scotland  by  both  the  civil  and  religious 
authorities ;  and  then  was  sent  out  into  the  two  countries  to 
be  subscribed  by  the  whole  population.  By  the  terms  of  the 
engagement  made  in  it,  the  difference  in  the  actual  ecclesi- 
astical situations  of  the  contracting  parties  was  clearly  rec- 
ognized, and  that  in  such  terms  as  to  make  the  actual  situa- 
tion in  Scotland  the  model  of  the  establishment  agreed  upon 
for  both  countries.  The  contracting  parties  bound  them- 
selves to  "the  preservation  of  the  reformed  religion  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and 
government,  against  our  common  enemies",  on  the  one 
hand ;  and  on  the  other  to  "the  reformation  of  religion  in 
the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland,39  in  doctrine,  wor- 
ship, discipline  and  government,  according  to  the  Word  of 

88  So  Baillie,  ii.,  p.  90;  cf.  also  Burnet,  Dukes  of  Hamilton,  p.  307. 

"  The  inclusion   of  Ireland  in   the  new  church-system   is  to  be  ob- 

'1:    so  thai   from  the  Treaty  of  Edinburgh,  Nov.  19,  1643,  we  hear 

ys  of  "the  three  kingdoms"  in  this  connection. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        1 99 

God,  and  the  example  of  the  best  reformed  churches";  to 
the  end  that  thereby  "the  Churches  of  God  in  the  three 
kingdoms"  might  be  brought  "to  the  nearest  conjunction 

and  uniformity  in  religion,  confession  of  faith,  form  of 
church  government,  directory  for  worship  and  catechiz- 
ing."40 According  to  the  terms  of  this  engagement,  there- 
fore, the  Parliament  undertook,  in  the  settlement  of  the 
Church  of  England  on  which  it  was  engaged,  to  study  to 
bring  that  Church  to  the  nearest  possible  "conjunction  and 
uniformity"  with  the  existing  settlement  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  and  that  in  the  four  items  of  Confession  of  Faith, 
Form  of  Church  Government,  Directory  for  Worship,  and 
Catechizing,  and  these  four  items  were  accordingly  cur- 
rently spoken  of  thereafter  as  "the  four  points  or  parts  of 
uniformity".41     By  this  engagement  there  was  given  obvi- 

40  Rushworth,  Ed.  1721,  v.,  p.  478.  The  "Solemn  League  and  Cove- 
nant" is  also  printed  in  the  ordinary  Scotch  editions  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith;  and  in  Gee  and  Hardy,  p.  569. 

41  Xo  doubt  the  engagement  does  not  in  so  many  words  bind  the 
English  to  the  adoption  of  "the  Presbyterian  system",  and  no  doubt  it 
was  with  a  view  to  preserving  to  them  a  certain  liberty  of  action  that 
they  insisted  on  inserting  the  clause  "according  to  the  Word  of  God", 
and  on  defining  the  variety  of  prelacy  which  was  condemned;  but  much 
too  much  has  been  made  of  these  things  (cf.  Gardiner,  Civil  War,  ii., 
p.  268).  After  all  the  engagement  bound  the  contracting  nations  to 
the  preservation  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishment  in  Scotland,  and  to 
the  reformation  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishment  in  England  accord- 
ing to  the  Scotch  model,  so  far  as  the  Word  of  God  permitted,  and  it 
was  fully  understood  that  whatever  this  saving  clause  denoted  it  had 
reference  to  details  rather  than  to  principles.  It  must  be  admitted, 
however,  that  there  soon  developed  a  disposition  to  treat  this  saving- 
clause  as  permitting  liberty  in  the  settlement  of  the  English  Church,  so 
far  as  the  Scriptures  allowed  it :  and  to  those  who  were  able  to  per- 
suade themselves  that  no  schedule  of  church-government  was  derivable 
from  Scripture,  this  liberty  stretched  very  far.  We  may  observe  how 
the  matter  was  viewed  by  the  Parliamentary  contractors,  as  clearly  as 
elsewhere,  no  doubt,  from  certain  words  of  Browne,  when  rebuking 
the  Assembly  (Ap.  30,  1646)  for  its  attitude  with  respect  to  the  jus 
divinum.  "It  is  much  pressed",  said  he,  "for  the  point  of  the  Covenant. 
We  all  agree  that  the  Word  of  God  is  the  rule  and  must  be  the  rule, 
but  say  there  is  no  positive  rule  in  the  Word.  Are  we  by  the  Covenant 
bound  to  follow  the  practice  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  case  it  be 
against  the  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom?  You  must  interpret  the 
Covenant  so  that  all  parts  may  stand.     We  are  bound  to  maintain  the 


200  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

ously  not  only  a  wholly  new  bearing  to  the  work  of  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  which  had  been  convened  as  a  standing 
body  of  counsellors  to  the  Parliament  in  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs, and  that  one  of  largely  increased  significance  and 
heightened  dignity;  but  also  a  wholly  new  definiteness  to 
the  work  which  should  be  required  of  it,  with  respect  both 
to  its  compass  and  its  aim.  Whatever  else  Parliament 
might  call  on  the  Assembly  to  advise  it  in,  it  would  now 
necessarily  call  on  it  to  propose  to  it  a  new  Form  of  Church 
Government,  a  new  Directory  for  Worship,  a  new  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  a  new  Catechetical  Manual.  And  in  framing 
these  formularies  the  aim  of  the  Assembly  would  now  nec- 
essarily be  to  prepare  forms  which  might  be  acceptable  not 
merely  to  the  Church  of  England,  as  promising  to  secure 
her  internal  peace,  and  efficiency,  but  also  to  the  Church  of 
Scotland  as  preserving  the  doctrines,  worship,  discipline, 
government  already  established  in  that  Church.  The  sig- 
nificance of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was,  there- 
fore, that  it  pledged  the  two  nations  to  uniformity  in  their 
religious  establishments  and  pledged  them  to  a  uniformity 
on  the  model  of  the  establishment  already  existing  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland.^ 

The  taking  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  by  the 
two  nations,  on  the  one  side  marked  the  completeness  of 
the  failure  of  the  ecclesiastical  policy  of  the  King,  and  on 
the  other  seemed  to  promise  to  the  Scots  the  accomplishment 


liberties  of  Parliament  and  kingdom.  If  I  do  any  act  against  this,  I 
am  a  breaker  of  the  Covenant."  (Minutes,  p.  448  sq.).  That  is  to  say, 
Browne  is  so  convinced  that  there  is  no  divine  prescription  as  to  the 
government  of  the  church  and  that  the  sole  judge  in  ecclesiastical 
things  is  the  state,  and  that,  as  Rudyard  put  it  on  the  same  occasion, 
"the  civil  magistrate  is  a  church  officer  in  every  Christian  common- 
wealth" to  whom  in  England  all  jurisdiction  is  reserved,  that  he  cannot 
admit  that  the  Covenant  with  its  "according  to  the  Word  of  God" 
imposes  any  form  of  government  whatever.  He  has  more  difficulty  with 
the  adjoined  phrase,  "and  the  example  of  the  best  Reformed  Churches", 
and  in  point  of  fact  merely  repudiates  its  binding  force  when  inconsis- 
tent with  English  law— as  if  the  very  purpose  of  the  Covenant  were  not 
to  establish  a  new  law  in  England.  That  the  Covenant  bound  all  parties 
to  preserve  the  Presbyterian  establishment  in  Scotland,  no  man  doubted. 
(Cf.  Carlylc's  Cromwell's  Letters,  ii.,  p.  172.) 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    Work        201 

of  a  dream  which  had  long  been  cherished  by  them.  The 
broader  ecclesiastical  policy  consistently  pursued  by  the 
throne  throughout  the  whole  Stuart  period  had  been  di- 
rected to  the  reduction  of  the  religion  of  the  three  kingdoms 
to  uniformity.42  The  model  of  this  uniformity,  however, 
was  naturally  derived  from  the  Prelatical  constitution  of  the 
Church  of  England,  to  which  the  Stuart  monarchs  had 
taken  so  violent  a  predilection ;  and  that,  in  the  later  years 
of  their  administration  when  the  policy  of  "thorough"  was 
being  pushed  forward,  as  interpreted  in  an  extremely  reac- 
tionary spirit.  No  one  could  doubt  that  important  advan- 
tages would  accrue  from  uniformity  in  the  religious  estab- 
lishment of  the  three  kingdoms;  and  the  Scots,  taking  a 
leaf  out  of  their  adversaries  book,  began  early  to  press  for 
its  institution  in  the  reconstructed  church,  on  the  basis, 
however,  of  their  own  Presbyterianism.  Their  motive  for 
this  was  not  merely  zeal  for  the  extension  of  their  particular 
church-order,  which  they  sincerely  believed  to  be  jure 
divino;  but  a  conviction  that  only  so  could  they  secure  them- 
selves from  future  interference  in  their  own  religious  estab- 
lishment from  the  side  of  the  stronger  sister-nation.  They 
had  no  sooner  recovered  their  Presbyterian  organization, 
and  simplicity  of  worship,  therefore,  than  they  began  to 
urge  the  reformation  of  the  sister-church  on  their  model. 
The  Scottish  peace-commissioners,  for  example,  took  up  to 
London  with  them,  in  the  closing  months  of  1640,43  a 
paper  drawn  up  by  Alexander  Henderson,  in  which  they  set 
forth  their  "desires  concerning  unity  in  Religion",  and 
"uniformity  of  Church  Government  as  a  special  mean  to 
preserve  peace  in  his  Majesty's  dominion".44  In  this  paper 
they  declared  that  "it  is  to  be  wished  that  there  were  one 


42  Cf.  the  expression  given  to  this  policy  in  the  Preface  to  The  Booke 
of  Common  Prayer,  which  was  thrust  upon  the  Scottish  Church  in  1637 
(Prof.  Cooper's  Edition,  Edinburgh,  1904,  pp.  7-8). 

43  Cf.  the  letter  of  Alexander  Balfour,  from  Newcastle,  29  Dec,  1640, 
printed  in  Laing's  Ed.  of  Baillie's  Letters,  ii.,  p.  473. 

44  The  document  is  printed  in  the  Appendix  to  Hetherington's  History 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  Ed.  4.  pp.  382  sq.  Cf.  Mitchell,  Baird 
Lectures  on  The  Westminster  Assembly,  Ed.  2,  p.  105  and  note. 


202  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

Confession  of  Faith,  one  form  of  Catechism,  one  Directory 
for  all  parts  of  the  public  worship  of  God,  and  for  prayer, 
preaching,  administration  of  sacraments,  etc.,  and  one  form 
of  Church  Government  in  all  the  churches  of  his  Majesty's 
dominions".  Here  we  see  enumerated  the  precise  schedule 
of  uniformity  which  was  afterwards  undertaken  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  the  items 
being  arranged  climactically  in  the  order  of  ascending  imme- 
diate importance.  For  the  Commissioners  recognized  that 
it  was  uniformity  of  Church  Government  which  was  most 
imperatively  required;  and  equally  frankly  urged  that  this 
uniformity  of  Church  Government  should  be  sought  by  the 
common  adoption  by  both  nations  of  the  Presbyterian 
system.  The  propriety  of  such  a  demand  they  argued  on 
the  grounds  that  the  Presbyterian  system  was  the  system 
in  use  in  all  other  Reformed  churches;  that  the  English 
Prelatical  system  had  been  the  source  of  much  evil ;  that  the 
Reformed  churches  were  clear  that  their  system  is  jure 
divino,  while  the  jus  divinum  was  not  commonly  claimed 
for  Episcopacy;  45  and  above  all,  that  the  Scotch  were 
bound  by  oath,  not  lately  taken  in  wilfulness  but  of  ancient 
obligation,  to  the  Presbyterian  system,  while  the  English 
were  free  to  recast  their  system,  and  indeed  were  already 
bent  on  recasting  it.  This  paper  was  handed  in  to  the 
Lords  of  the  Treaty  on  March  10,  1641,  with  little  ap- 
parent immediate  effect.  Indeed,  there  seems  to  have  been 
even  a  disposition  to  resent  its  suggestions.  The  whole 
matter  was  put  to  one  side  by  the  Parliament  with  a  some- 
what grudging  word  of  thanks  to  Scotland  for  wishing 
uniformity  of  church  government  with  England,  and  a 
somewhat  dry  intimation  that  Parliament  had  already  taken 
into  consideration  the  reformation  of  church  government 

"The  jus  divinum  seems  to  have  been  first  claimed  for  episcopacy 
by  Bancroft  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  but  was  finding  many  supporters 
at  the  time  when  Henderson's  paper  was  drawn  up,  though  these  sup- 
porters still  constituted  only  a  party.  The  difference  between  the  two 
parties  in  this  matter  was  urged  by  Falkland  (Marriott,  p.  203)  :  only 
"some  bishops  pretended  to  jure  divino",  but  this  is  the  essence  of  "the 
Scotch  Government". 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        203 

and  would  proceed  in  it  in  due  time  "as  should  best  conduce 
to  the  glory  of  God  and  peace  of  the  Church".40  This 
response  was  accordingly  embodied  in  the  treaty  of  August 
7,  1 64 1,47  to  the  effect  that  the  desire  expressed  for  "a  uni- 
formity of  Church  Government  between  the  two  nations" 
was  commendable;  "and  as  the  Parliament  had  already 
taken  into  consideration  the  reformation  of  Church  Govern- 
ment, so  they  would  proceed  in  due  time  as  should  seem 
most  conducive  to  the  glory  of  God  and  peace  of  the  Church 
and  of  both  kingdoms". 

Nevertheless  the  suggestion  ultimately  bore  fruit.  It 
was  repeated  by  Henderson  to  the  Scottish  Assembly, 
meeting  at  the  end  of  July  next  ensuing,  in  a  proposi- 
tion that  the  Scotch  Church,  by  way  of  holding  out  the 
olive  branch,  should  itself  draw  up  a  new  "Confession  of 
Faith,  a  Catechism,  a  Directory  for  all  parts  of  publick 
worship,  and  a  Platform  of  Government,  wherein  England 
and  we  might  agree".48  This  proposal  met  so  far  with 
favor  that  Henderson  was  himself  appointed  to  take  the 
labor  in  hand,  with  such  help  as  he  should  choose  to  call  to 
his  side.  On  further  consideration,  however,  he  himself 
judged  it  best  to  await  the  issue  of  affairs  in  England  ;49  fully 
recognizing  that  the  adoption  of  purely  Scottish  forms  by 
both  nations  was  not  to  be  hoped  for,  but  if  uniformity  was 
ever  to  be  attained,  it  must  come  by  "the  setting  down  of  a 
new  form  for  all,  prepared  by  some  men  set  apart  for  that 
work".50  Accordingly,  when,  as  the  outbreak  of  open  war 
between  the  Parliament  and  the  King  became  imminent  in 
the  midsummer  of  1642,  Parliament  addressed  a  letter  to 
the  Scottish  Assembly  declaring  "their  earnest  desire  to 
have  their  church  reformed  according  to  the  word  of 
God,""'1  and  their  well-grounded  hope  of  accomplishing  this 


46  Cf.  Shaw,  op.  cit.,  pp.  128  sq. 

*'  Cf.    Makower,    Constitutional    History   of   the   Church    of   England. 
E.  T.,  p.  78.  note  37, 
48  Baillie,  Letters,  i..  p.  365  :  cf.  p.  376. 
■  Baillie,  ii.,  pp.  1,  2,  24. 

60  Henderson's  letter  in  Baillie,  ii.,  p.  2. 

61  Baillie,  ii.,  p.  45. 


204  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

task  if  war  could  be  averted, — all  of  which  was  interpreted, 
and  was  intended  to  be  interpreted,  by  an  accompanying 
letter  "from  a  number  of  English  ministers  at  London"  in 
which  it  was  asserted  that  "the  desire  of  the  most  godly 
and  considerable  part"  among  them  was  for  the  establish- 
ment in  England  of  the  Presbyterian  Government,  "which 
hath  just  and  evident  foundation  both  in  the  word  of  God 
and  religious  reason" ;  and,  referring  directly  to  the  Scot- 
tish proposal,  "that  (according  to  your  intimation)  we  may 
agree  in  one  Confession  of  Faith,  one  Directory  of  Wor- 
ship, one  public  Catechism,  and  form  of  Government"52 — 
the  Assembly  naturally  responded53  by  reiterating  its  desire 
for  this  unifying  settlement  and  renewing  "the  proposition 
made  by"  its  commissioners  in  1641  "for  beginning  the  work 
of  reformation  at  the  uniformity  of  Church  Government". 
"For  what  hope"  the  Assembly  argues,  can  there  be  of 
unity  in  religion,  of  one  Confession  of  Faith,  one  form  of 
Worship,  and  one  Catechism,  till  there  be  one  form  of  eccle- 
siastical government?"  The  response  of  Parliament,54  sat- 
isfactory if  a  little  reserved,  intimated  the  expected  meeting 
of  the  reforming  synod  on  Nov.  5,  and  asked  the  appoint- 
ment of  some  Scottish  delegates  "to  assist  at  it"  ;55  a  re- 
quest which  was  immediately  complied  with,  and  the  Com- 
missioners named,  who,  a  year  later,  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  went  up  in  somewhat 
different  circumstances,  and  with  a  somewhat  different 
commission.56    Meanwhile  the  Scots  assiduously  kept  their 


"Acts  of  Assembly,  1642. 

"This  letter  is  printed  in  Rushworth,  Ed.  1692,  III.,  ii.  (vol.  5),  p.  388. 

54  Rushworth,  Ed.  1692,  III.,  ii.  (vol.  5),  p.  390  sq. 

66  Bailiie,  Letters,  ii.,  55- 

"These  commissioners  were  eight  in  number,  and  were  fairly  repre- 
sentative of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in  the  two  parties  into  which  it 
was  then  divided  with  respect  to  its  sympathies  with  the  old  order  in 
Scotland  or  with  "the  movement  party  in  the  South",  that  is,  the 
Puritans.  Robert  Douglas,  Alexander  Henderson,  Robert  Bailiie,  with 
the  Earl  of  Cassilis  and  Lord  Maitland,  belonged  to  the  one  side; 
Samuel  Rutherford,  George  Gillespie  and  Archibald  Johnston  of 
Warriston  to  the  other  (cf.  Leishman,  The  West  minster  Directory, 
1901,  p.  ix.).     Douglas  and  Cassilis  never  went  up  to  London  on  their 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        205 

proposals  for  the  institution  of  uniformity  of  religious  con- 
stitution in  the  two  nations  forward,57  and  the  course  of 
events  finally  threw  the  game  into  their  hands,  when  the 
commissioners  of  Parliament  appeared  in  Edinburgh  in 
August,  [643  seeking  Scottish  aid  in  their  extremity,  and 
swore  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  as  its  price.  By 
this  compact  the  two  nations  bound  themselves  precisely  to 
the  punctual  carrying  out  of  the  program  proposed  by  the 
Scottish  Commissioners  in  1640  -I. 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind,  was  no  loose  agreement  between  two  churches,  but 
a  solemnly  ratified  treaty  between  two  nations.  The  com- 
missioners who  went  up  to  London  from  Scotland  under 
its  provisions,  went  up  not  as  delegates  from  the  Scottish 
Church  to  lend  their  hand  to  the  work  of  the  Assembly  of 
Divines,  but  as  the  accredited  representatives  of  the  Scottish 
people,  to  treat  with  the  English  Parliament  in  the  settle- 
ment of  the  details  of  that  religious  uniformity  which  the 
two  nations  had  agreed  with  one  another  to  institute.  They 
might  on  the  invitation  of  the  English  Parliament  be  pres- 
ent at  the  sessions  of  the  advisory  Assembly  it  had  convened, 
and  give  it  their  advice  throughout  all  the  processes  of  its 

commission,  which  Dr.  Leishman  supposes  to  have  been  due  to  the 
King's  veto  on  the  Assembly,  as  both  were  strong  royalists  (as  cited 
p.  x.).  In  the  case  of  Douglas,  at  least,  this  seems  hardly  likely,  in 
view  of  his  position  in  the  Commission  of  the  General  Assembly,  and 
his  letters  recorded  in  its  minutes.  Dr.  Mitchell  rather  has  the  truth, 
when  he  writes  (Baird  Lectures,  pp.  129-130)  :  "Robert  Douglas,  the 
silent,  sagacious,  masterful  man,  could  not  be  spared  from  the  duties  of 
leadership  at  home,  but  he  assisted  and  cheered  them  by  his  letters,  main- 
tained good  understanding  between  them  and  the  Church  in  Scotland, 
and  in  their  absence  came  to  occupy  a  place  among  his  brethren  al- 
most as  unique  as  that  of  Calvin  among  the  presbyters  of  Geneva." 
The  notices  of  his  colleagues  in  Baillie's  Letters,  which  are  always 
appreciative  and  affectionate,  exhibit  a  complete  harmony  among  the 
Commissioners  at  London;  and  the  Records  of  the  Commissions  of  the 
General  Assemblies  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  published  by  Drs. 
Mitchell  and  Christie,  reveal  an  equal  harmony  between  the  Commis- 
sioners in  London  and  the  Commission  in  Edinburgh  under  the  guid- 
ance of  Douglas. 

"Baillie,  ii.,  p.  87;  and  cf.  the  correspondence  with  the  King  in  Rush- 
worth,  Ed.  1692,  III.,  ii.  (vol.  5),  pp.  393  sq. 


206  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

deliberations.  And  it  is  obvious  that  their  presence  there 
would  much  advance  the  business  in  hand,  by  tending  to  pre- 
vent proposals  of  a  hopelessly  one-sided  character  from 
being  formulated.  It  would  seem  obvious  also  that  it  was 
eminently  fitting  that  Scotch  counsels  should  be  heard  in 
the  deliberations  of  a  body  to  which,  under  whatever  safe- 
guards, was  in  point  of  fact  committed  the  task  of  preparing 
the  drafts  of  formularies  which  it  was  hoped  might  prove 
acceptable  to  both  churches, — especially  when  thirty  mem- 
bers of  the  English  Parliament,  the  party  of  the  other  part 
to  this  treaty,  were  members  of  the  body.  But  the  proper 
task  of  the  Scotch  commisssioners  lay  not  in  the  Assembly 
of  Divines,  but  outside  of  it.  It  was  their  function,  speaking 
broadly,  to  see  that  such  formularies  were  proposed  to  the 
two  contracting  nations  for  the  reducing  of  their  church 
establishments  to  uniformity,  as  would  be  acceptable  to  the 
Church  of  Scotland  which  they  represented,  and  would 
fulfil  the  provisions  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant 
under  the  sanction  of  which  they  were  acting.58  And  if  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  were  utilized,  as  it  in  point  of  fact  was 
utilized,  to  draw  up  these  draft  formularies,  it  was  the 
business  of  the  Scottish  Commissioners  to  see  that  the 
Divines  did  their  work  in  full  view  of  the  Scottish  desires 
and  point  of  view,  and  that  the  documents  issued  from  their 
hands  in  a  form  in  which  the  Church  of  Scotland  could 
adopt  them.  In  the  prosecution  of  these  their  functions  as 
treaty  commissioners,  their  immediate  relations  were  not 
with  the  Assembly  of  Divines  but  with  the  Parliament  or 


B8The  General  Assembly  (Acts  for  1643,  pp.  89,  90  sq.)  addressing 
the  Parliament  of  England,  informs  it  that  the  Scottish  Commissioners 
have  been  "nominated  and  elected"  "to  repair  unto  the  Assembly  of 
Divines  and  others  of  the  Church  of  England,  now  sitting  at  West- 
minster, to  propound,  consult,  treat  and  conclude  with  them  ...  in 
all  such  things.  ..."  Here  the  Assembly  of  Divines  and  the 
Scotch  Commissioners  are  looked  upon  as  the  two  parties  by  whose 
consultings  together  the  contemplated  agreements  are  to  be  reached. 
Addressing  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  however,  the  General  Assembly 
only  informs  them  that  commissioners  had  been  appointed  "to  report 
to  your  Assembly"  without  defining  to  what  ends.  It  is  to  Parliament 
that  the  Assembly  speaks  as  to  the  other  contracting  party. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        -inj 

with  whatever  commissioners  the  Parliament  might  appoint 

to  represent  it  in  conference  with  them.  They  could  treat 
with  or  act  directly  upon  the  Assembly  of  Divines  only  at 

the  request  of  Parliament,  to  treat  with  which  they  were 
really  commissioned;  and  only  to  the  extent  which  Parlia- 
ment might  judge  useful  for  the  common  end  in  view.  A 
disposition  manifested  itself,  it  is  true,  on  their  appearing  in 
London,  to  look  upon  them  merely  as  Scotch  members  of 
the  Assembly  of  Divines,  appointed  to  sit  with  the  Divines 
in  response  to  a  request  from  the  English  Parliament.  This 
view  of  their  functions  they  vigorously  repudiated.  They 
were  perfectly  willing,  they  said,59  to  sit  in  the  Assembly  as 
individuals  and  to  lend  the  Divines  in  their  deliberations  all 
the  aid  in  their  power,  if  the  Parliament  invited  them  to  do 
so.  But  as  commissioners  for  their  National  Church,  they 
were  Treaty  Commissioners,  empowered  to  treat  with  the 
Parliament  itself.  Accordingly  a  committee  of  Parliament 
was  appointed  (Oct  15,  1643)  to  meet  statedly  with  them 
and  consult  with  them,  to  which  was  added  a  committee  from 
the  Divines;  and  it  was  through  this  "Grand  Committee" 
that  the  work  of  the  Assembly  on  the  points  of  uniformity 
was  directed.00    As  they  were  requested  by  Parliament  also 


69  This  "willingness"  was  not,  however,  spontaneous.  Henderson  tells 
us  (Baillie's  Letters,  ii.,  p.  483)  that  the  Commissioners,  "against  their 
former  resolution,  were,  by  their  friends  and  for  the  good  of  the  cause, 
persuaded  to  joyne"  with  the  Assembly.  Baillie's  own  very  lucid 
account  runs  as  follows  (ii.,  p.  no)  :  "When  our  Commissioners  came 
up  they  were  desired  to  sit  as  members  of  the  Assembly,  but  they 
wisely  declined  to  do  so;  but  since  they  came  up  as  Commissioners 
from  our  national  Church  to  treat  for  uniformity,  they  required  to  be 
dealt  with  in  that  capacity.  They  were  willing  as  private  men  to  sit  in 
the  Assembly,  and  upon  occasion  to  give  their  advice  on  points  debated ; 
but  for  the  uniformity  they  required  a  committee  might  be  appointed 
from  the  Parliament  and  the  Assembly  to  treat  with  them  thereanent. 
All  of  these  after  some  harsh  enough  debates  were  granted;  so  once 
a  week  and  sometimes  oftener  there  is  a  committee  of  some  Lords, 
Commons  and  Divines  which  meets  with  us  anent  our  commission." 
For  this  committee  see  p.  102. 

60  Commons'  Journal,  iii.,  p.  278;  Lords'  Journal,  v.,  p.  265;  Lightfoot, 
xiii.,  p.  27.  Cf.  Baillie,  ii.,  pp.  102,  no;  and  for  the  completeness  with 
which  they  were  from  the  first  recognized  and  dealt  with  as  treaty  com- 


208  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

"as  private  men"  to  sit  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines  they 
occupied  a  sort  of  dual  position  relatively  to  the  Assembly,61 
and  this  has  been  the  occasion  of  some  misunderstanding 
and  even  criticism  of  their  varied  lines  of  activity.  The 
matter  is,  however,  perfectly  simple.  In  all  its  work  look- 
ing to  the  preparation  of  a  basis  for  the  proposed  uniformity, 
the  Assembly  really  did  its  work  under  the  direction  prox- 
imately not  of  the  Parliament  but  of  "the  Grand  Commit- 
tee", and  the  results  of  its  labors  were  presented,  therefore, 
not  merely  to  Parliament,  but,  also,  through  its  commis- 
sioners, to  the  Scottish  Assembly.  The  Scotch  Commission- 
ers as  members  of  "the  Grand  Committee"  had  therefore 
an  important  part  in  preparing  the  work  of  the  Divines  for 
them  in  all  that  concerned  the  uniformity;  and  as  present  at 
the  deliberations  of  the  Divines  were  naturally  concerned  to 
secure  for  their  own  proposals  favorable  consideration,  and 
did  their  best  endeavors  to  obtain  such  results  as  they  might 
as  commissioners  of  the  Scotch  Church  recommend  to  its 
approval.  Throughout  everything  they  acted  consistently 
as  the  Commissioners  of  the  Scotch  Church,  seeking  the 
ends  which  they  were  as  such  charged  with  securing.  They 
were  not  members  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  were  present 
at  its  meetings  and  took  part  in  its  deliberations  only  by 
express  invitation  and  frankly  as  the  agents  of  the  Scotch 

missioners  apart  from  the  Assembly  cf.  instances  in  Rushworth,  III.,  ii. 
(vol.  5),  p.  371,  ed.  1692. 

91  Cf.  the  speech  of  George  Gillespie  in  the  General  Assembly,  Aug. 
6,  1647  (Baillie's  Letters,  III.,  p.  450)  :  "Ye  know  we  have  acted  in  a 
double  capacity  according  to  our  commission :  We  have  gone  on  in  a 
way  of  treating  with  the  Committee  of  Parliament  and  Divines  jointly, 
and  have  given  in  many  papers  as  concerning  the  officers  of  the  Kirk, 
excluding  scandalous  persons  from  the  Kirk  Sacrament,  the  growth  of 
Heresies,  and  such  things  as  in  your  judgment  and  ours  was  defective 
among  them.  We  have  acted  in  another  capacity,  debating  with  and 
assisting  the  Assembly  of  Divines  their  debates.    .    .    .  Lord  War- 

riston  thus  expresses  his  relation  to  the  Assembly  of  Divines:  "I  am 
a  stranger  .  .  .  having  a  commission  both  from  that  Church  and 
State,  and  at  the  desire  of  this  kingdome  assisting  in  your  debates." 
(Speech  to  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  May  1st,  1646,  in  Records  of  the 
Commissions  of  the  General  Assemblies  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
edited  by  Mitchell  and  Christie,  i.,  p.  82.) 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        200, 

Church,  and  possessed  and  exercised  no  voice  in  the  deter- 
minations of  the  body.02 

By  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  therefore,  the  work 
of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  was  revolutionized,  and  not  only 
directed  to  a  new  end  but  put  upon  a  wholly  new  basis.  Its 
proceedings  up  to  the  arrival  of  the  first  of  the  Scottish 
Commissioners  in  London,  on  Sept.  15,  1643,  and  the  taking 
of  the  Covenant  on  Sept.  22nd,  must  be  regarded  simply  as 
"marking  time".  The  Parliament  perfectly  understood 
before  the  first  of  July,  what  was  before  it;  and  it  could 
never  have  imagined  that  the  revision  of  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  upon  which  it  had  set  the  Assembly  could  prove  an 
acceptable  Confession  of  Faith  for  the  two  churches.  The 
employment  of  the  Assembly  in  that  labor  was  but  an  expe- 
dient to  occupy  it  innocuously  until  its  real  work  under  the 
new  conditions  could  be  begun.  With  the  coming  of  the 
Scotch  Commissioners,  however,  the  real  work  of  the 
Assembly  became  possible,  and  was  at  once  committed  to  it. 
Already  on  Sept.  18,  there  was  referred  to  it  from  the 
Commons  the  consideration  of  a  discipline  and  government 
apt  to  procure  nearer  agreement  with  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land and  of  a  new  liturgical  form,  and  from  the  12th  of  the 
October  following,63  when  the  Lords  had  concurred,  the 
Assembly  was  engaged,  with  many  interruptions,  no  doubt, 
but  in  a  true  sense  continuously,  and  even  strenuously,  upon 
the  "four  things  mentioned  in  the  Covenant,  viz. :  the  Di- 
rectory for  Worship,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Form  of 
Church  Government,  and  Catechism".64  And  when  "the 
debating  and  perfecting"  of  these  four  things  were  over,  the 

"The  fact  that  the  Scotch  Commissioners  did  not  vote  in  the  di- 
visions of  the  Divines  is  made  evident  in  various  ways,  and  is  con- 
firmed by  the  absence  of  their  names  from  all  the  recorded  votes  of  the 
Assembly  (see,  e.  .</..  Minutes,  p.  252).  Cf.  in  general  the  note  of  Dr. 
Mitchell  in  his  Baird  Lectures  (2d  ed.),  pp.  180- 1. 

"The  order  of  the  Commons  was  passed  Sept.  18  and  at  once  com- 
municated to  the  Assembly:  but  the  Lords  concurred  only  on  Oct.  12. 
See  the  facts  drawn  out  by  Shaw,  A  Hist,  of  the  English  Church,  I., 

PP-  153-4- 

"Minutes,  Session  936,  Oct.  15,  1647,  p.  484. 

14 


2IO  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

real  work  of  the  Divines  was  done,  and  the  last  of  the  Scotch 
Commissioners  accordingly,  having  caused  a  formal  minute 
to  that  effect  to  be  entered  on  the  records  of  the  Assembly, 
felt  able  to  take  leave  of  the  Assembly  and  return  home.65 
As  an  advisory  committee  to  the  Parliament  of  England, 
many  other  tasks  were  laid  on  the  Assembly,  some  of  which 
had  their  close  connection  with  its  work  on  the  points  of  uni- 
formity, and  some  of  which  had  no  connection  with  it  at  all. 
And  the  life  of  the  Assembly  was  prolonged  as  such  a  com- 
mittee for  many  months  after  its  whole  work  on  "the  uni- 
formity" had  been  completed.  But  its  significant  work  lies 
decidedly  in  its  preparation  of  a  complete  set  of  formularies 
— Confession,  Catechisms,  Platform  of  Government,  Direc- 
tory for  Worship — which  it  proposed  to  the  contracting 
nations  as  a  suitable  basis  for  a  uniform  church  establish- 
ment in  the  three  kingdoms. 

In  the  next  number  of  this  Review  some  account  will  be 
given  of  the  work  of  the  Divines  in  the  preparation  of  these 
formularies. 

Princeton.  •  Benjamin  B.  Warfield. 

M  Minutes,  p.  484. 


THE  PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL 
REVIEW 

Volume  VI  July  1908  Numb 

THE  WESTMINSTER  ASSEMBLY  AND  ITS  WORK. 

In  the  last  number  of  this  Review*  some  account  was 

given  of  the  calling  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  and  of 
its  historical  meaning.  It  was  pointed  out  that  its  really 
significant  work  was  the  preparation  of  formularies  de- 
signed to  serve  the  churches  of  the  three  kingdoms  as  a 
basis  for  uniform  establishments.  Some  account  of  its 
work  on  these  so-called  "four  parts  of  uniformity"  is  now 
to  be  given. 

Of  these  "four  parts  of  uniformity",  the  one  which  was 
at  once  the  most  pressing  and  the  most  difficult  for  the 
Assembly,  was  the  preparation  of  a  platform  of  government 
for  the  churches.  Both  Parliament  and  Assembly  were, 
indeed,  fairly  committed  to  the  Presbyterian  system  under 
solemn  sanction;  and  the  majority  of  the  members  of 
both  bodies  were  sincerely  Presbyterian  in  conviction.68 
But  sincerity  and  consistency  are  very  different  matters: 
and  so  soon  as  the  details  of  church  organization  were 
brought  under  discussion,  a  bewildering  variety  of  judge- 
ments was  revealed.  The  Scots,  though  prepared  to  yield 
in  the  interest  of  harmony  all  that  it  was  possible  to  yield, 

*  Number  for  April,  1908,  pp.  177-210. 

M  Baillie,  writing  in  1645.  says  ( ii.,  p.  320)  :    "The  bodie  of  the  Parlia- 
ment. City,  and  Countrey  arc  for  the  Presbyterie."    Cf.  i..  p.  2$ 
Doe..  1640:    "The  farr  greatest  part  are  for  our  discipline." 
23 


354  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

perhaps  more  than  it  was  altogether  wise  to  yield,  were  yet 
peremptory  for  a  really  Presbyterian  establishment,  as  they 
were  bound  to  be  under  the  engagements  of  the  National 
Covenant  and  were  fully  entitled  to  be  under  those  of  the 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  In  this  they  were  supported 
by  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Assembly.  It  fell, 
indeed,  to  the  lot  of  the  Scots  to  hold  back  the  English 
Presbyterians  from  precipitate  and  aggressive  action.  It 
was  their  policy  to  obtain  if  possible  a  settlement  not  so 
much  imposed  by  a  majority  as  at  least  acceptable  to  all.67 
I  They  therefore  gave  themselves  not  merely  to  conciliate  the 
minor  differences  which  emerged  in  the  debate, — on  the  part 
of  those,  for  example,  who  preferred  a  mixed  Presbyterian 
and  Episcopal  system  (Twisse,  Gataker,  Gouge,  Palmer, 
Temple) , — but  j^enJ^tQjsaJ^fv^  the ,.smairbut_ablejiaiid  of 
Independents Jn,ihe_Assembly  (Goodwin,  Nye,  Burroughs, 
Bridge,  Carter,  Caryl,  Phillips,  Henry),  who.  wished  all 
authoritative  government  in  the  church  to  stop. with  the  con- 
gregation.   The  Independents,  on  their  part,  adopted  an 

obstructive  policy,  and  set  themselves  not  only  to  obtain 
every  concession  it  was  possible  to  wring  from  the  majority, 
but  to  delay  the  adoption  of  its  scheme  of  Presbyterian  gov- 
enment,  and  if  possible,  to  defeat  its  establishment  alto- 
gether.   They  were  supported  in  this  policy  by  the  Erastians 


87  For  example,  with  respect  to  the  office  of  ruling  elders,  Baillie  tells 
us  (ii.,  pp.  no,  in,  116)  of  the  procedure  thus:  "Sundrie  of  the  ablest 
were  flat  against  the  institution  of  any  such  officer  by  divine  right.  .  .  . 
The  most  of  the  synod  were  in  our  opinion.  .  .  .  There  was  no 
doubt  but  we  would  have  carried  it  by  far  most  voices ;  but,  because  the 
opposites  were  men  verie  considerable,  above  all  gracious  and  learned 
little  Palmer,  we  agreed  upon  a  committee  to  satisfie  if  it  were  possible 
the  dissenters.  .  .  .  All  of  them  were  ever  willing  to  admitt  Elders 
in  a  prudentiall  way.  .  .  .  We  trust  to  carie  at  last,  with  the  con- 
tentment of  sundrie  once  opposite,  and  the  silence  of  all,  their  divyne 
and  scripturall  institution."  Again,  more  generally  (ii.,  p.  122)  :  "We 
doubt  not  to  carrie  all  in  the  Assemblie  and  Parliament  clearlie  according 
to  our  mind ;  but  if  we  carie  not  the  Independents  with  us,  there  will  be 
ground  laid  for  a  verie  troublesome  schisme.  Alwayes  [i.  c,  neverthe- 
less] it's  our  care  to  use  our  outmost  endeavour  to  prevent  that  danger- 
OUS    I  evil]." 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    [TS    WORK 

who,  though  not  largely  represented  in  the  Assembly 
•.  Coleman,  Selden),  were  dominant  in  Parlia- 
ment,68 which  accordingly  showed  itself  ultimately  averse 
to  establishing  any  church  government  possessed  of  inde- 
pendent or  final  jurisdiction  even  in  spiritual  matter-.''''' 
In  the  vain  hope  of  escaping  the  schism  threatened  by  the 
Independents  and  of  avoiding  an  open  breach  with  the 
Erastian  Parliament,  the  Presbyterian  majority  in  the  As- 
sembly proceeded  slowly  with  their  platform  of  govern- 
ment, contenting  itself  meanwhile  with  debating  and  voting 
a  series  of  detached  propositions,  which  were  moreover 
couched  in  the  simplest  and  most  comprehensive  language, 
while  they  postponed  for  the  present  framing  a  systematic 
statement.  This  delay  was,  however,  itself  as  great  an  evil 
as  could  have  been  encountered ;  and  as  the  differences  it  was 
I  to  conciliate  were  such  as  in  their  nature  were  not 
subject  to  "accommodation,"  the  assembly  was  compelled 
in  the  end  to  report  its  scheme  of  government,  which  it  had 
thus  reduce  its  lowest  terms  and  in  so  doing  shorn  of  . 

and  attract!  in  the  face  of  the 

illie  ( ii..  p.  307)  remarks:   ''The  most  part  of  the  House  of  Com- 

5,   whereof  they   are   many,   and   divers   of 

nun.  are  either  half  or  whole  Erastians,  believing  no 

Church-government  to  be  of  divine  right,  bot  all  to  be  a  humane  con- 

stituti  ling  on  the  will  of  the  magistrate-."     A  >   in   (p.  336).  he 

tells  us  that  (  in  1646)  two-thirds  of  Parliament  was  made  up  of  worldly 

it,  / 
Erastians,   and    F.rastianizing  lawyers,   together   with   a    small   but    in- 
fluential  band   of   Independents.     Cf.   also   pp.   250,   265.    -  315. 
rly  Baillie  r  ■•                                   at  "'the  power  cf  the  Parlia- 
ment i                                                                           t  the  qu 
were  to  be  determined  I  ii..  p.  - 

"The  position  of  Parliament  laid  down  in  the  resolution  with  respect 
to  the  G  ''' 

gives  a  fair  expression  to  its  fundamental  attitude  toward-;  all 
conventions,  which  was  adhered  to  thr 

land  Convented  in  any  Com  Synod,  or  otherwise,  havi 

power  to  make  any  Constitutii  ns,  Can   1 

of  Doctrine.  Disciplii  bind  the  Clergy  or  the  Laity  of 

the  Land,  without  common  Consent  of  Parliament"     (C 
mil,  ii.,  p.  51.  cf.  Lords'  Journal,  i\\.  p.  2jx.  Rushworth.  iii..  p.  1365.) 


/ 


356  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

protest  of  the  Independents  and  to  a  determinedly  Erastian 
Parliament.70 

The  first  portion  of  the  Assembly's  work  presented  to 
Parliament  was  the  Directory  for  Ordination  which  was 
sent  up  on  April  20,  1644.71  This  was  followed  the  ensuing 
Autumn,  (Nov.  8  and  Dec.  II,  1644)  by  certain  Proposi- 
tions concerning  Church  Government,  compacted  out  of 
the  several  separate  declarations  upon  points  of  government 
which  had  from  time  to  time  been  voted  by  the  Assembly  in 
the  course  of  its  debates,  now  gathered  together  and  thrown 
into  some  semblance  of  order.  It  must  be  confessed  that 
the  work  of  collecting  and  ordering  these  propositions  was 
somewhat  carelessly  done.  Now  and  then,  for  example,  in 
transferring  them  from  the  Minutes  clauses  are  retained 
which  have  no  proper  meaning  in  their  new  setting.  We  are 
told,  for  instance,  that  "the  pastor  is  an  ordinary  and  per- 
petual officer  in  the  church,  prophesying  of  the  time  of  the 
Gospel";  and  it  is  only  from  the  vidimus  of  the  votes  of 
the  Assembly  preserved  by  Gillespie  that  we  learn  that  the 
clause  "prophesying  of  the  time  of  the  Gospel",  here  sheer 
nonsense,  was  a  comment  on  Jer.  iii.  15-17  which  was  on  this 
ground  adduced  as  a  proof  text  for  the  proposition  "that 
there  is  such  an  ordinary  and  perpetual  officer  in  the  church 
as  a  pastor".72  Again  there  is  enumerated  among  the  offices 
of  a  pastor  as  if  it  were  an  independent  function,  "to  dis- 
pense other  divine  mysteries ;"  and  we  have  to  go  to  Gilles- 
pie's vidimus  to  learn  that  the  Assembly  meant  just  the  sac- 
raments (along  with  the  benediction)  and  no  "other  divine 


70  "The  Pope  and  the  King",  says  Raillie  (ii.,  p.  360),  "were  never 
more  earnest  for  the  headship  of  the  Church  than  the  pluralitie  of  this 
Parliament." 

71  Commons'  Journal,  iii.,  p.  466;  Lords'  Journal,  vi.,  p.  524. 

73  The  Form  of  Presbyterian  Church  Government:  "The  pastor  is  an 
ordinary  and  perpetual  officer  in  the  Church,  prophesying  of  the  time  of 
the  Gospel."  Votes  passed  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  etc,  in  Gillespie's 
Works,  IT.,  3:  "That  there  is  such  an  ordinary  and  perpetual  office  in 
the  church  as  a  paster,  proved  by  Jer.  iii.  15-17  (prophesying  of  the 
time  of  the  gospel),  1  Pet.  v.  2-4." 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        $$7 

mysteries"  by  this  phrase.78  The  document  nevertheless 
contains  a  firm  enough,  though  cautiously  worded,  presenta- 
tion of  the  essentials  of  the  Presbyterian  system;  and  was 

therefore  followed,  of  course,  by  a  protest  from  the  Inde- 
pendent members  of  the  Assembly,  which  naturally  occa- 
sioned a  reply  from  the  Assembly  itself.  These  documents 
were  later  (1648)  published  together  under  the  title,  The* 
Reasons  Presented  by  the  Dissenting  Brethren  Against  Cer- 
tain Propositions  Concerning  Church  Government,  together 
with  the  Answers  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  to  these 
Reasons  of  Dissent;  and  republished  in  1652  under  the  new 
title,  The  Grand  Debate  concerning  Presbytery  and  Inde- 
pendency by  the  Assembly  of  Divines  convened  at  West- 
minster by  authority  of  Parliament. 

The  Propositions  themselves,  to  which  the  Directory  for 
Ordination  was  adjoined,  so  as  to  form  a  single  document, 
were  dealt  with  very  freely  by  Parliament.     Intent  only  on 


7;  The  FoDii,  etc.  "It  belongs  to  his  office,  To  pray  for  and  with  his 
flock.  .  .  .  To  read  the  scriptures  publickly.  .  .  .  To  feed  the  flock, 
by  preaching  of  the  word.  ...  To  catechise.  ...  To  dispense  other 
divine  mysteries.  .  .  .  To  administer  the  sacraments.  .  .  .  To  bless 
the  people  from  God.  .  .  .  To  take  care  of  the  poor.  .  .  .  And  he 
hath  also  a  ruling  power  over  the  flock  as  a  pastor."  In  the  Votes 
(in  Gillespie,  ii.,  p.  3)  :  "That  which  the  pastor  is  to  do  from  God  to  the 
people,"  is  distributed  under  the  heads  of  "Reading,"  "Preaching"  and 
"the  dispensation  of  other  divine  mysteries";  and  then  "Thai  which 
the  pastor  is  to  perform  in  the  behalf  and  name  of  the  people  to  God" 
is  taken  up  and  distributed  into  praying,  ruling  and  caring  for  the  poor. 
Under  "Preaching"  is  subsumed  both  preaching  and  catechising; 
and  under  the  general  head  of  "the  dispensation  of  ether  divine 
mysteries"  we  have  the  following  two  specifications:  "That  it  is  the 
office  of  a  pastor  to  feed  the  flock  by  the  dispensation  of  other  divine 
mysteries,  proved  by  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  2 :  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments, Matt,  xxviii.,  19. jo:  Mark'  xvi..  15,  10:  1  Cor.  xi..  23-25,  with 
1  Cor.  x.  16.  That  he  is  to  bless  the  people  from  God,  Num.  vi.  25-26, 
with  Rev.  i.  4,  5  (where  the  same  blessings  and  persons  from  whom  they 
came  are  expressly  mentioned),  and  Isa.  lxvi.  _>i,  where,  under  the 
names  of  priests  and  Levites,  to  be  continued  under  the  gospel,  are 
meant  evangelical  pastors,  who  therefore  are,  by  office,  to  bless  the 
people,  Dent.  x.  <S ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14:  Eph.  i.  ->."  The  "other  divine  mys- 
teries" are  therefore  just  the  sacraments  and  benediction  ;  they  are 
enumerated  as  other   than   "reading"   and   "preaching"   the   word 


35§ 


THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 


*•£* 


the  practical  settlement  of  the  church  while  it  preserved  to 
itself  all  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  authority,  Parliament 
on  the  one  hand,  undertook  to  extract  from  The  Proposi- 
tions only  so  much  of  a  practical  directory  as  would  enable 
the  church  to  go  on;  and  on  the  other,  precipitated  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines  into  what  threatened  to  become  endless 
debates  on  the  jus  divinum  of  the  details  of  the  Presbyterian 
system  and  the  autonomy  of  the  Church  and  particularly  the 
right  of  the  Church  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  spiritual  juris- 
diction to  exclude  the  scandalous  from  participation  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.74     In  these  debates,  and  in  the  whole  con- 

74  Parliament  was  in  no  sense  averse  to  a  Presbyterian  settlement. 
What  is  was  unalterably  opposed  to  was  a  jus  divinum  settlement  of 
any  kind.  It  was  of  the  strongest  conviction,  in  even  its  most  Puritan 
element,  that  the  church  derived  all  its  authority  and  jurisdiction  from 
the  state;  and  it  identified  the  state  with  itself.  As  Nathaniel  Fiennes, 
son  of  Lord  Saye,  put  it  in  the  debates  of  Feb.,  1641 :  "By  the  law  of 
the  land  not  only  all  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  but  also  all  superiority 
and  pre-eminence  over  the  ecclesiastical  state  is  annexed  to  the  Imperial 
crown  of  this  realm,  and  may  be  granted  by  commission  under  the 
Great  Seal  to  such  persons  as  his  Majesty  shall  think  meet".  Parlia- 
ment, acting  as  the  ultimate  source  of  authority,  was  to  set  up  a  govern- 
ment for  the  church :  and  the  government  was  to  be  the  Parliament's 
government  through  and  through.  What  government  the  Parliament 
would  set  up  was  from  the  first  determined  to  be  the  Presbyterian.  "Nor 
shall  we  need",  said  D'Ewes  in  May,  1641,  "to  study  long  for  a  new 
Church  government,  having  so  evident  a  platform  in  so  many  reformed 
Churches".  Only,  it  was  Presbyterian  government,  not  jure  div'xno,  but 
"in  a  prudentiall  way"  which  was  steadily  contemplated.  Accordingly 
when  the  Propositions  concerning  Church  Government  came  up  to 
Parliament  this  was  the  rock  on  which  it  struck.  Parliament  was  very 
willing  to  order  the  churches  on  the  Presbyterian  model,  but  not  to  erect 
independent  judicatories,  founded  in  a  divine  right,  and  exercising  their 
functions  uncontrolled  by  Parliament.  "We  passed  proposition  3, 
about  which  there  had  been  some  dispute  among  the  divines,"  says 
Whittaker,  {Diary,  p.  371),  "with  this  alteration,  leaving  out  the 
words,  'that  the  Scriptures  doth  hold  forth',  and  resolving  it  thus, 
that  many  several  congregations  may  be  under  one  Presbyterial  Gov- 
ernment." Cf.  Commons'  Journal,  iv.,  pp.  20  and  28.  And  when  the 
question  of  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  the  exclusion  of  the  scandalous  from  it,  came  up,  Parliament 
absolutely  refused  to  commit  to  the  church  officers,  in  congregational  or 
classical  assemblies,  the  determination  of  what  sins  should  be  accounted 
scandals    excluding    from    the    sacrament,    and    insisted    upon    itself 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        ^^) 

duct  of  its  negotiations  with  Parliament  during  this  dis- 
pute, the  Assembly  manifested  the  highest  dignity,  firm- 
ness and  courage.  If  Parliament  utterly  refused  to  set  up 
a  series  oi  ecclesiastical  courts  with  independent  jurisdiction 
even  in  purely  spiritual  matters,  and  insisted  on  reserving 
to  itself,  or  to  secular  committees  established  by  and  directly 
responsible  to  it,  the  review  of  even  such  spiritual  functions 
as  the  determination  of  fitness  to  receive  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,78  the  Assembly  on  its  part  respectfully 


making  an   enumeration   of  such   scandals,   and   reserving  in   all   other 
cases  appeal  to  itself.    It  thus  intruded  into  the  very  penetralium  of  the 
spiritualia   and   raised  with   the   Assembly   the   precise   question   which  j 
Calvin   had  raised  in  Geneva  in  the  matter  of  Berthelier.     It  was  on  / 
this  point  that  the  sharpest  conflict  between  Parliament  and  Assembly  \ 
took  place. 

75  Tn  the  Eliabethan  Articles  of  1563,  while  it  is  asserted  that  "the 
chief  government  of  all  estates  of  this  realm,  whether  they  be  eccle- 
siastical or  civil,  in  all  causes"  appertains  to  the  throne,  yet  "the  admin- 
istration of  the  word  and  sacraments"  is  expressly  excluded  from  the 
sweep  of  this  supremacy.  Parliament  in  1645  was  unwilling  to  permit 
even  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  to  remain  in  the  unreviewed 
power  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  On  the  other  hand,  of  course,  1 
the  Westminster  divines  in  their  insistence  on  the  autonomy  of  the/ 
church,  were  claiming  far  more  independence  of  action  for  the  church  I 
than  the  Acts  of  Supremacy  no  less  of  the  Elizabethan  settlement  than  of 
that  of  Henry  VIII  allowed.  The  Erastian  temper  of  Parliament,  which 
was  inclined  to  push  the  traditional  control  of  the  church  by  the  civil 
powers  to  extremes,  was  met  thus  by  an  anti-Erastian  principle  in  the 
Assembly  to  which  the  old  settlement  seemed  unendurable.  There  was 
no  wish  on  the  part  of  the  Westminster  divines,  to  be  sure,  to  take  from 
the  magistrate  what  is  his.  "We  do  not  rob  the  magistrate  of  that 
which  is  his",  says  Gillespie  (A avail's  Rod,  p.  xvi),  "by  giving  unto 
Christ  that  which  is  Christ's."  "I  do  not  plead  against  'the  power  of  the 
sword'  when  I  plead  for  'the  power  of  the  keys'."  But  they  were 
determined  that  the  magistrate  should  not  take  from  Christ  that  which 
is  His.  "Is  it  so  small  a  thing",  asked  Warriston  in  his  speech  of  May 
1st  (see  infra),  "to  have  the  sworde  that  they  must  have  the  keyes  also?" 
This  the  divines  could  not  in  conscience  acquiesce  in.  On  the  Long 
Parliament's  assumption  of  the  entire  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  see  Dr. 
Shaw,  A  History  of  the  English  Church  During  1640-1660,  T..  pp.  22J  sq. 
("the  unscrupulous  and  revolutionary  seizure  by  the  Parliament  of  every 
part  of  the  domain  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  which  had  hitherto  in 
wh<le  or  in  part  belonged  peculiarly  to  the  spiritual  courts",]).  236).  Dr. 
Shaw,  on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  consider  the  Parliament  justified  in 
refusing  to  commit   to  the   ecclesiastical   courts   unreviewed   powers   in 


360  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

but  firmly  protested  against  such  an  intrusion  of  the  secular 
arm  into  spiritual  things,  and  refused  to  be  a  party  to  any 
ecclesiastical  arrangement  which  denied  to  the  church  what 
it  deemed  its  divinely  prescribed  rights  and  responsibilities. 
It  took  for  its  motto  the  ringing  phrase,  "The  Crown  rights 
of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  declared  that  on  His  shoulders  the 
government  is,  and  that  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  has 
been  given  Him,  and,  ascended  far  above  all  heavens,  He 
has  received  gifts  for  His  church  and  has  given  to  it  officers 
necessary  for  its  edification  and  the  perfecting  of  His  saints. 
It  showed  itself,  in  the  noble  words  of  Warriston,  "tender, 
zealous  and  care  full  to  assert  Christ  and  his  Church  their 
priviledge  and  right  .  .  .  that  Christ  lives  and  reigns 
alone  over  and  in  his  Church,  and  will  have  all  done  therin 
according  to  his  Word  and  will,  and  that  he  lies  given  no 
supreme  headship  over  his  church  to  any  Pope,  King,  or 
Parliament  whatsoever."76  On  the  matter  of  the  spiritual 
jurisdiction  of  the  church,  the  Assembly  remained  unmoved 
and  insisted  that  Christ  has  instituted  in  the  church  a  gov- 
ernment and  governors  ecclesiastical  distinct  from  the  civil 
magistrates.77     Meanwhile,  realizing  that  it  was  of  the  first 

determining  the  scandals  excluding  from  the  sacrament ;  which  surely 
is  a  very  remarkable  position  to  take  up  in  these  later  days, — or  at  least 
it  seems  so  to  "the  clerical  mind". 

76  Speech  of  Lord  Warriston  in  the  Assembly,  May  1,  1646,  in  the 
breach  of  privilege  matter,  printed  in  Mitchell  and  Christie,  Records  of 
the  Commissions  of  the  General  Assemblies  of  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
I.,  pp.  82-98.     Cf.  W.  Morison,  Johnston  of  Warriston,  1901,  pp.  96  sq. 

""I  am  confident",  said  Warriston  (as  above)  to  the  Assembly,  .  .  . 
"yee  will  all  look  to  and  hold  out  the  maine,  Christs  kingdome  distinct 
from  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth."  This  was  said  May  1,  1646.  On  the 
6th  of  the  previous  March,  the  proposition  "that  Jesus  Christ  as  King 
and  Head  of  His  Church  hath  appointed  an  ecclesiastical  government 
in  His  Church  in  the  hand  of  Church  Officers  distinct  from  civil  gov- 
ernment", had  been  brought  in  for  discussion  ;  and  it  was  vigorously 
debated  with  Coleman  as  the  leader  of  the  dissent  until  his  death,  at  the 
end  of  March,  and  then  against  Lightfoot  through  April.  On  July  7th 
it  was  passed  with  Lightfoot  alone  dissenting.  Ultimately  it  was  made 
the  first  paragraph  of  Ch.  xxx.  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in  the  word- 
in-  :  "The  Lord  Jesus,  as  king  and  head  of  his  church,  hath  therein  ap- 
pointed a  government  in  the  hand  of  church  officers,  distinct  from  the 
civil  magistrate."    This  chapter  was  not  accepted  by  Parliament. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK 

importance  to  get  the  framework  of  the  Presbyterian  gov- 
ernment established  and  in  operation,  the  Divines  under  the 
leadership  of  Alexander  Henderson,  passing  by  these  doc- 
trinal matters  for  the  moment,  had  drawn  up  a  Practical 
Directory  for  Church  Government,  which  they  had  pre- 
sented to  Parliament  July  7,  1045.  In  this  document,  which 
avoided  as  far  as  possible  all  questions  of  principle,  very  full 
and  definite  expositions  were  given  of  the  actual  framework 
of  Presbyterian  government.  It  commended  itself  in  this 
aspect  of  it  to  Parliament  and  was  ultimately  in  large  part 
adopted  by  it  in  an  ordinance  passed  on  August  29,  1648, 
and  was  published  in  this  somewhat  diluted  shape  as  The 
Form  of  Church  Government  to  be  used  in  the  Church  of 
England  and  Ireland. 

In  Scotland  this  document  was  never  formally  approved, 
as  the  earlier  Propositions,  which  were  approved  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  were  never 
ratified  by  the  English  Parliament.  Thus  neither  became 
of  authority  in  both  churches.  The  modified  Presbyterian- 
ism  set  up  by  the  Long  Parliament  in  England,  under  the 
direction  of  the  one  document,  moreover,  was  soon  swept 
away;  while  the  other  document,  approved  indeed  by  the 
Scottish  General  Assembly  but  never  ratified  by  the  Estates 
of  the  Scottish  Parliament,  though  it  has  held  its  place 
among  the  formularies  of  the  Scottish  churches  until 
to-day,  has  been  largely  superseded  in  the  churches  deriving 


>up 


their  descent  from  them./  The  permanent  influence  of  the 
labors  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  the  great  matter  of 
church  organization — supposed  at  the  time,  as  they  were, 
to  be  its  most  important,  as  they  certainly  were  its  most 
pressing  and  its  most  difficult  labors — has  been  largely 
unofficial  and  somewhat  indirect.  /  It  has  doubtless  been 
exerted  nearly  as  powerfully,  indeed,  through  such  treatises 
as  The  Grand  Debate,  already  mentioned,  or  the  Jus  Di~ 
vinum  Regiminis  Ecelesiastiei,  published  by  some  of  the 
ministers  of  London  at  the  end  of   [646,  but   supposed  to 


/ 


362  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

incorporate  the  Assembly's  answers  to  the  jus  divinum 
queries  propounded  to  it  by  Parliament,  as  through  their 
formal  advices  to  Parliament.  Indeed,  it  is  questionable 
whether  the  really  great  works  of  individual  members  of 
the  Assembly  on  these  topics,  such  as  Gillespie's  An  Asser- 
tion of  the  Government  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  (1641) 
and  Aaron's  Rod  Blossoming  (1646),  Rutherford's  Due 
Right  of  Presbytery  (1646),  and  Henderson's  The  Govern- 
ment and  Order  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  (1641,  and  again 
1690),  must  not  be  conceived  the  chief  vehicles  of  this 
influence.  The  most  that  can  be  said  for  the  formal  work 
of  the  Assembly  in  this  field  is  that  it  gave  ungrudg- 
ingly an  immense  amount  of  self-denying  labor  to  preparing 
advices  for  the  use  of  Parliament  in  settling  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  England  on  a  Presbyterian  model, 
but  was  prevented  by  the  circumstances  in  which  it  did  its 
work  from  doing  full  justice  in  these  documents  either  to 
its  own  clear  and  strong  convictions  or  to  the  system  with 
which  it  was  dealing. 

Next  to  the  elaboration  of  a  new  scheme  of  government 
for  the  Church  of  England  which  should  bring  it  into  har- 
mony with  the  established  government  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland,  the  most  pressing  task  committed  to  the  Assembly 
of  Divines  was  the  preparation  of  a  new  form  of  worship 
to  take  the  place  of  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  now  to  be 
abolished,  by  which  the  modes  of  worship  in  the  Church  of 
England  should  be  conformed  "to  the  example  of  the  best 
Reformed  Churches".  The  prosecution  of  this  task  was 
attended  with  no  such  difficulties  as  beset  the  formulation 
of  the  scheme  of  government.  There  existed  no  doubt  dif- 
ferences enough  in  usage  and  preference  among  the  several 
parties  in  the  Assembly  in  this  region  of  church  life  also; 
and  these  differences  ranged  all  the  way  from  a  distaste 
among  the  Independents  to  all  prescriptions  in  worship  to 
a  predilection  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  English  churchmen 
for  a  complete  liturgy.78     But  they  were  less  deeply  rooted 

7"  Cf.  Baillic,  ii.,  pp.  122.  2_)2. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        363 

and  more  easily  conciliated  in  a  middle  way  than  the  differ- 
ences by  which  they  were  divided  in  the  matter  of  church 
government.  The  work  of  formulating  forms  of  worship 
acceptable  to  all  was,  therefore,  pushed  through  compara- 
tively rapidly,  and  the  whole  Directory  for  the  Publi 
Worship  of  God  throughout  the  Three  Kingdoms  of  Eng- 
land, Scotland  and  Ireland  was  sent  up  to  Parliament  by 
the  end  of  1644.  By  an  ordinance  of  Parliament,  dated 
January  3d,!  4th],  1045,  it  was  established  in  England  and 
Wales  "to  be  henceforth  used,  pursued,  and  observed  in  all 
exercises  of  the  publique  worship  of  God  in  every  congr- 
tion,  church,  cappell  and  place  of  publique  worship";  and  a 
month  later  it  was  approved  and  established  in  Scotland  by 
Acts  of  Assembly  (Feb.  3d)  and  the  Estates  of  Parliament 
(Feb.  6th).  .After  some  slight  adjustments  it  was  printed 
and  put  into  circulation  in  both  countries  during  the  ensuing 
spring  (the  English  edition  bears  on  its  title-page  the  date 
1644,  but  that  is  "old  style").  As  is  indicated  by  the  title, 
the  book  is  not  "a  straight  liturgy",  but  a  body  of  agenda 
and  paradigms.  Some  of  these  paradigms,  to  be  sure,  are 
so  full  that  they  are  capable  of  being  transmuted  into 
liturgical  forms  by  a  mere  transposition  of  their  clauses  into 
the  mode  of  direct  address,  but  they  were  not  intended  to  be 
so  employed  and  are  too  compressed  to  lend  themselves 
readily  to  such  use.79 

The  first  draft  of  the  document  was  prepared  by  a  sub- 
committee of  the  Great  Treaty  Committee,  and.  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Practical  Directory  for  Church  Government,  it 
largely  the  work  of  the  Scots.80  The  suggestions  for 
the  prayers  of  the  Sabbath-day  service,  and  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments,  were  in  the  first  instance  their 
work;81  and  they  ultimately  had  the  drawing  up  also  of  the 
suggestions  For  preaching  and  for  catechizing.82    Naturally, 


79  See  the  Preface  to  the  documenl  and  compare  Marshall's  explana- 
tion in  the  MS.  Minutes,  ii..  folio  286b,  as  quoted  by  Mitchell.  Baird 
Lee  hues.  Ed.  2,  p.  240. 

*°  Baillie,  ii..  pp.  1 17.  [31. 

81  Baillie,  pp.  131,  140. 


364  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

therefore,  there  is  much  in  the  book  which  is  derived  from 
Scottish  usage.  The  Sabbath  service,  for  example,  is  in  its 
general  structure  practically  identical  with  that  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Order  (commonly  called  "Knox's  Liturgy"), 
and  the  materials  for  the  consecration  prayer  in  the  direc- 
tory for  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  are  mainly  derived 
from  the  same  source.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  latter 
part  of  this  same  prayer  and  the  concluding  thanksgiving 
are  more  reminiscent  of  the  English  Book  of  Common 
Prayer. sz  The  book  as  a  whole,  in  fact,  does  not  so  much 
follow  Scottish  as  offer  a  compromise  between  Scottish  and 
Puritan  usage.  Acquiescence  in  this  compromise  must  have 
cost  the  Scots  a  great  effort,  as  it  was,  in  effect,  a  reversal 
of  a  deliberate  policy  which  had  been  adopted  by  the  Scot- 
tish Church.  After  the  recovery  of  its  purity  of  worship 
consequent  upon  the  outbreak  of  1637,  the  Scottish  Church 
was  considerably  disturbed  by  the  intrusion  of  certain 
"novations"  into  its  worship,  which  were  really  Puritan 
customs,  seeping  in,  no  doubt,  in  part,  from  England,  but 
mainly  brought  in  by  returning  Scottish  emigrants  to  Ulster. 
These  "novations"  were  made  the  subject  of  earnest  con- 
ference at  the  General  Assembly  of  1641,  and  again  at  that 
of  1643;  and>  'm  order  to  meet  the  peril  which  they  ap- 
peared to  threaten,  it  was  determined  at  the  latter  Assembly 
that  "a  Directorie  for  the  worship  of  God"  should  "be 
framed  and  made  ready,  in  all  the  parts  thereof,  against  the 
next  General  Assembly"  (that  of  1644),  Henderson,  Cal- 
derwood  and  Dickson  being  charged  with  the  drafting  of  it. 
This  whole  undertaking  was  naturally  superseded,  however, 


82  Baillie,  ii.,  pp.  148-169. 

83  The  directory  for  the  thanksgiving  after  Sermon  has  been  attributed 
to  Dr.  Edward  Reynolds,  from  whom  came  also  the  General  Thanks- 
giving which  was  added  to  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  after  the 
Restoration  (cf.  Cardwell,  Synodalia,  p.  658;  PrOctor  and  Frere,  A  New 
History  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  1901,  p.  428;  E.  H.  Eland, 
The  Layman's  Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  1896,  p. 
135;  L.  Pullan,  The  History  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  1900, 
Index,  p.  328). 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK 

by  the  inauguration  of  the  broader  attempt  to  introduce., 
through  the  mediation  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  a  com- 
mon 1  )irectory  for  the  Three  Kingdoms.  But  the  odd  effect 
of  this  supersession  was  that  the  "novati  "  E  >r  the  exclu- 
sion of  which  from  the  Church  of  Scotland  the  first  under- 
taking was  set  on  foot,  were  in  large  measure  constituted 
the  official  usage  of  the  Church  by  the  new  Directory.  By 
the  very  conditions  of  its  formulation  this  Directory  became 
a  compromise  between  the  Scottish  and  the  Puritan  modes 
of  worship  rather  than  a  bar  to  the  introduction  into  Scot- 
land of  Puritan  modes  of  worship. 

By  these  '  novations"  the  use  of  "read  prayers",84  and 
even  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  in  public  worship,  was  dis- 
countenanced, as  was  also  the  use  of  the  Gloria  Patri, 
and  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments,  and  the  habit  of  the  minister  to  bow  in  silent 
prayer  upon  entering  the  pulpit.  Xo  one  of  these  usages, 
on  which  the  Scots  laid  much  stress,  except  the  use  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  is  prescribed  by  the  Directory;  hut 
as  none  of  them  are  proscribed  either,  the  Scots  were  able 
to  "save  their  face"  by  attaching  to  the  Act  by  which  the 
Assembly  adopted  the  Directory  the  proviso:  "That  this 
shall  he  no  prejudice  to  the  order  and  practice  of  this  kirk 
in  such  particulars  as  are  appointed  by  the  book  of  dis 
line,  and  acts  of  General  Assemblies,  and  are  not  otherwise 
ordered  and  appointed  in  the  Directory."  By  a  supplement- 
ary Act  of  the  same  Assembly,  however,  they  voluntarily 
laid  aside — "for  satisf  i  of  the  desir  -end 

Divines  in  the  Synod  of  England,  and  for  uniformity  with 
that  Kirk  so  much  endeared  to  us", — the  "lawful  custom"  of 
"the  minister  bowing  in  the  pulpit".85     Of  more  importance 


M  On  the  other  hand,  exte  prayers  had  been   pr  hibiti 

pain    of   deprivation    in    the    Canons    which    had    been    imposed    on    the 
Scottish  Church  during  the  tyranny  of  Charles   (1637).     This  qui 
was  a  burning  <  ne. 

"The  objection  (Baillie,  Letters,  II..  p.  122)  of  the  English  Puritans 
(and  the  Scotch  innovators,  too;  for  this  was  one  of  "the  three  nocent 
ceremonies"  objected  to  by  them)   to  the  minister's  private  prayer  in  the 


366  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

than  any  of  these  usages,  at  least  for  the  conduct  of  the  public 
services,  was  the  loss  by  the  Scots,  through  the  Westminster 
Directory,  of  the  office  of  "Reader".  From  the  Reforma- 
tion down,  the  former  or  liturgical  portion  of  the  Scottish 
Sabbath  service — the  opening  prayer,  the  lessons  from 
Scripture,  and  the  singing  of  a  Psalm — had  been  conducted 
by  a  "Reader",  the  Minister  taking  charge  of  the  services, 
and  indeed  commonly  entering  the  church,  only  when  he 
ascended  the  pulpit  to  preach.     The  Westminster  Divines 


pulpit,  seems  to  have  been  made  insistent  by  an  abuse  of  it  by  the 
prelatical  party  "to  bow  to  the  east  and  the  altar"  (Baillie,  ii.,  p.  259).  It 
appears,  however,  to  rest  ultimately  on  a  maxim  widely  adopted  by  the 
Puritans,  "that  all  private  worship  in  the  time  and  place  of  public 
worship  is  to  be  discharged".  The  Puritans,  therefore,  consistently 
objected  also  to  private  prayers  by  the  people  on  assembling  for 
worship,  and  to  private  praying  by  the  recipients  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
before  and  after  participation.  Cf.  Baillie's  letter  to  his  colleagues  in 
opposition  to  this  sentiment,  printed  as  Appendix  E  to  Dr.  Leishman's 
edition  of  The  Westminster  Directory,  pp.  188  sq:  cf.  also  Dr.  Leish- 
man's notes,  pp.  86,  132.  Dr.  Leishman  thinks  that  the  clause  in  the 
Directory,  "Let  all  enter  the  assembly,  not  irreverently,  but  in  a  grave 
and  seemly  manner,  taking  their  seats  or  places  without  adoration,  or 
bowing  themselves  towards  one  place  or  other",  does  not  forbid  the 
offering  of  private  prayer  before  the  service  has  begun,  but  only  super- 
stitious recognition  of  sacred  places  in  the  sanctuary  (p.  86).  But  it 
is  clear  that  private  praying  on  the  part  of  late  comers  is  forbidden  in 
the  clause:  "If  any,  through  necessity,  be  hindered  from  being  present 
at  the  beginning,  they  ought  not,  when  they  come  into  the  Congregation, 
to  betake  themselves  to  their  private  devotions,  but  reverently  to  com- 
pose themselves  to  join  with  the  assembly  in  that  Ordinance  of  God 
which  is  then  in  hand."  Perhaps  we  may  say  the  exception  proves  the 
rule,  and  the  prohibition  of  private  devotions  to  late  comers,  that  they 
may  not  be  inattentive  to  the  public  worship,  implies  the  approval  of 
private  devotions  for  early  comers,  before  public  worship  has  begun. 
But  we  must  have  in  mind  also  the  general  sentiment  against  such 
private  devotions  in  public  places.  In  Gillespie's  notes  of  the  debates 
in  the  sub-committee  concerning  the  Directory  {Works,  II.,  p.  102)  we 
read:  "Sonic  debate  was  about  the  clause  forbidding  private  adoration 
at  coming  into  the  church",  which  seems  to  imply  that  the  purpose  was 
to  forbid  all  such  adoration.  But  then  it  is  added:  "Mr.  Marshall,  Mr. 
Palmer,  and  others  said,  This  is  very  necessary  for  this  church,  for 
though  the  minister  be  praying,  many  ignorant  people  will  not  join  in  it, 
till  they  have  said  over  the  Lord's  prayer",  which  seems  to  suggest  that 
late-comers  were  at  least  conjointly  and  perhaps  chiefly  in  mind. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    Work        367 

found  no  Scriptural  warrant  for  the  office  of  "Reader",  and, 
much  against  the  wishes  of  the  Scots,  enacted  that  the  min- 
ister should  conduct  the  entire  service.  "Reading  of  the 
Word  in  the  congregation",  they  set  down  in  their  Direc- 
tory, "being  part  of  the  public  worship  of  God  (wherein  we 
acknowledge  our  dependence  upon  Him,  and  subjection  to 
Him),  and  one  mean  sanctified  by  Him  for  the  edifying 
of  His  people,  is  to  be  performed  by  the  Pastors  and  Teach- 
ers."86 The  only  exception  they  would  allow  was  that  they 
permitted  candidates  for  the  ministry  occasionally  to  per- 
form the  office  of  reading,  as  also  that  of  preaching,  on 
permission  of  their  Presbyteries. 

On  the  other  hand,  besides  the  general  structure  of  the 
services,  as  already  noted,  Scottish  usage  was  followed  in 
the  Directory  in  many  important  points.  This  was  particu- 
larly true  in  the  regulations  for  the  celebration  of  the  Sac- 
raments. The  Baptismal  service,  for  example, — although 
the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  God-parents  were  omit- 
ted,— yet  followed  in  general  the  Scotch  order;  and  it  was 
thought  a  great  gain  for  the  Scots  when,  in  opposition  to 
practically  the  universal  English  custom,  they  got  it  or- 
dained that  Baptism  was  never  to  be  administered  in  private, 
but  always  in  "the  place  of  public  worship,  and  in  the  face 

"The  ''Teacher"  or  "Doctor"  was  a  coordinate  officer  with  the 
"Pastor",  which  the  Divines  (again  without  the  cordial  assent  of  the 
1  found  provided  for  in  the  Scriptures:  "The  scripture  doth  hold 
out  the  name  and  title  of  teacher,  as  well  as  of  the  pastor;  who  is  also 
a  minister  of  the  Word,  as  well  as  the  pastor,  and  hath  power  of  admin- 
istration of  tlie  sacram  Propositions  for  Church  Government). 
With  respect  to  the  difference  about  the  "Reader".  Baillie  writes  I  Let- 
ters. IT.,  p.  122):  "Here  came  the  first  question,  about  Reader-:  the 
Assemblie  has  past  a  vi  we  came,  that  it  is  a  part  of  the 
tor's  office  to  read  the  Scriptures;  what  help  he  may  have  herein  by 
these  who  are  not  pastors,  it  is  not  yet  agitat.  Alwayes  [nevertheless] 
these  of  best  note  about  London  are  now  in  use  in  the  desk,  to  pray, 
and  read  in  the  Sunday  morning  four  chapters,  and  expone  5<  • 
them,  and  cause  sing  two  Psalms,  and  then  goe  to  the  pulpit  to  preach. 
We  are  not  against  the  minister  reading  and  exponing  when  he  does  not 
preach;  bot  if  all  this  work  be  laid  00  the  minister  before  he  preach,  we 
fear  it  put  preaclrng  in  a  more  narrow  and  discreditable  roume  than  we 
would  wish." 


368  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

of  the  congregation".  It  was  over  the  mode  of  celebrating 
the  Lord's  Supper,  however,  that  the  most  strenuous  debates 
were  held.  The  manner  of  celebrating  that  rite  prevalent 
among  the  Independents,  seemed  to  the  Scots  to  be  bald 
even  to  irreverence ;  while  many  of  the  details  of  the  Scot- 
tish service  were  utterly  distasteful  to  the  extremer  Puri- 
tans. In  the  end,  things  were  ordered  fairly  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the   Scots,  although  in  one  matter  which  thev 

O  J 

thought  of  very  great  importance,  they  were  ultimately 
compelled  to  content  themselves  with  an  ambiguous  rubric. 
This  concerned  the  place  and  manner  of  the  reception  of 
the  elements.  The  Scots  were  insistent  for  their  own  cus- 
tom, in  which  the  communicants  arranged  themselves  at  the 
table  and  served  one  another  with  the  elements  as  at  an 
actual  meal.  This  usage  was,  after  strenuous  debate,  at  last 
ordered :  but  the  rubric  was  subsequently  so  changed  that  it 
ultimately  read,  merely:  'The  table  being  so  conveniently 
placed,  that  the  communicants  may  orderly  sit  about  it,  or 
at  it."  Accordingly  the  Scotch  Assembly,  in  adopting  the 
Directory,  added  this  proviso :  "That  the  clause  in  the 
Directory  of  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  which 
mentioneth  the  communicants  sitting  about  the  table,  or 
at  it,  be  not  interpreted  as  if,  in  the  judgment  of  this  kirk, 
it  were  indifferent,  and  free  for  any  of  the  communicants 
not  to  come  to,  and  receive  at  the  table;  or  as  if  we  did 
approve  the  distributing  of  the  elements  by  the  minister 
to  each  communicant,  and  not  by  the  communicants  among 
themselves."  In  a  supplementary  Act  the  Assembly  further 
laid  down  a  series  of  details  for  the  administration  of  this 
Sacrament.  It  was  in  accordance  with  the  Scottish  usage, 
also,  that  in  a  concluding  section,  the  Directory  abolished 
all  Festival  Days,  and  affirmed  that  "there  is  no  day  com- 
manded in  scripture  to  be  kept  holy  under  the  gospel  but 
the  Lord's  day,  which  is  the  Christian  Sabbath".87 

s7  This  fact  is  adverted  to  by  the  House  of  Commons  in  the  short 
account  they  gave  to  the  Scotch  Commissioners  in  July,  1644,  of  what 
it  had  already  accomplished,  that  the  Assembly  in  Scotland  might  be 


THE    WES1  [BLY    AND    ITS    WORK 

A  document  formed  as  this  was  by  a  series  of  compro- 
mises was  not  very  likely  to  command  the  hearty  loyalty  of 

any  section  of  its  framers.  We  are  not  surprised,  therefore. 
that  it  was  much  neglected  in  England,  though  in  Scotland 

it  gradually  made  its  way  against  ancient  custom  and  ulti- 
mately very  much  moulded  the  usages  of  the  churches. 
Even  in  Scotland,  however,  this  gradually  perfected  assimi- 
lation to  the  Directory  has  of  late  suffered  from  some 
reaction:  and  in  some  of  the  churches  deriving  their  formu- 
laries from  the  Scottish  Church,  the  Directory  was  early 
superseded  by  new  models  of  their  own.88  At  this  distance 
of  time  we  may  look  upon  it  dispassionately  ;  and.  s<>  viewed, 
it  can  scarcely  fail  to  commend  itself  as  an  admirable  set  of 
agenda,  in  spirit  and  matter  alike  well  fitted  to  direct  the 
public  services  of  a  great  church.  It  is  notable  for  its  free- 
dom from  petty  prescriptions  and  "superfluities"  and  for  the 
emphasis  it  places  upon  what  is  specifically  commanded  in 
the  Scriptures.  Its  general  tone  is  lofty  and  spiritual;  its 
conception  of  acceptable  worship  is  sober  and  restrained  and 
at  the   same   time   profound   and    rich :   the   paradigms   of 


informed:  ''The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  festival  days,  commonly 
called  Holy  days,  arc  by  ordinance  of  Parliament  taken  away,  and  a 
Directory  of  Worship  established  by  the  same  ordinance"  (Commons' 
Journal,  iv.,  p.  n).  How  strong  the  Scotch  feeling  on  these  matters 
was  may  be  observed  from  Rutherford's  letter  of  Sept.  23.  1637,  to  his 
parishioners  at  An  worth,  in  which  he  exhorts  them  to  stand  fast  in  the 
faith  he  had  taught  them  (Bonar's  edition,  Letter  68;  ed.  of  1692, 
Letter  148  of  Part  I).  Here  he  warns  them  that  "no  day  (besides  the 
sabbath,  which  i^  of  his  own  appointment)  should  be  kept  holy  and 
sanctified  with  preaching  and  the  publick  worship  of  Clod.  \.,r  the 
memory  of  Christ's  birth,  death,  resurrection  and  ascension:  seeing 
such  days  so  observed  arc  unlawful,  wil-worship,  and  not  warranted 
in  Christ's  word".  With  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper  he  warns  them, 
"that  ye  should  in  any  sort  forbear  the  receiving  the  Lord"s  supper,  but 
after  the  form  that  T  delivered  it  to  you.  according  to  the  example  of 
Christ  our  Lord,  that  i-.  that  ye  should  sit  as  banquetters.  at  one  table 
with  our  King,  and  eat  and  drink,  and  divide  the  element 
another". 

88  E.   g.,   the   American    Presbyterian    Churches,    for   whose    Din 
and  its  relations  to   the   Westminster   Directory,   see  L.   F.   Benson,   in 
The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  VITT.  41S. 

24 


0/ 


THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 


prayers  which  it  offers  are  notably  full  and  yet  free  from 
overelaboration,  compressed  and  yet  enriched  by  many 
reminiscences  of  the  best  models  which  had  preceded  them; 
and  it  is  singular  among  agenda  for  the  dominant  place  it 
gives  in  the  public  worship  of  the  church  to  the  offices  of 
reading  and  preaching  the  Word.S9  To  both  of  these  offices 
it  vindicates  a  place,  and  a  prominent  place,  among  the  parts 
of  public  worship,  specifically  so  called,  claiming  for  them 
distinctively  a  function  in  inducing  and  expressing  that 
sense  of  dependence  on  God  and  of  subjection  to  Him  in 
which  all  religion  is  rooted  and  which  is  the  purest  expres- 
sion of  worship;  and  thus  justifying  in  the  ordering  of  the 
public  services  of  the  churches  the  recognition  of  the  Word 
as  a  means,  perhaps  we  should  say  the  means,  of  grace.  It 
expends  as  much  care  upon  the  minister's  proper  perform- 
ance of  the  offices  of  reading  and  preaching  the  Word, 
therefore,  as  upon  his  successful  performance  of  the  duty 
of  leading  the  congregation  in  prayer  and  acceptably  ad- 
ministering to  it  the  Sacraments.  The  paragraph  on  the 
Preaching  of  the  Word  is  in  effect,  indeed,  a  complete  homi- 
letical  treatise,  remarkable  at  once  for  its  sober  practical 
sense  and  its  profound  spiritual  wisdom,  and  suffused  with 
a  tone  of  sincere  piety,  and  of  zeal  at  once  for  the  truth  and 
for  the  souls  which  are  to  be  bought  with  the  truth. 

One  of  the  sections  of  the  Directory  is  given  to  the  Sing- 
ing of  Psalms,  and  declares  it  "the  duty  of  Christians  to 
praise  God  publickly  by  singing  of  psalms  together  in  the 
congregation,  and  also  privately  in  the  family".  This  rubric 
manifestly  implied  the  provision  of  a  Psalm  Book,  and  it 
was  made  part  of  the  function  of  the  Assembly  in  preparing 
a  basis  for  uniformity  of  worship  in  the  churches  of  the 
three  kingdoms,  to  supply  them  with  a  common  Psalm  Book. 
The  way  was  prepared  for  this  by  the  submitment  to  the 


89  In  this  it  had  a  worthy  forerunner  in  Cartwright's  Directory,  a  copy 
of  which  was  found  in  his  study  in  1585  when  he  was  arrested.  It  was 
reprinted  in  1644  and  a  modern  edition  has  been  published  by  Principal 
Lorimer. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK 


vV 


Assembly  by  the  House  of  Commons  on  Nov.  20,  [643,  of 
the  query  whether  "it  may  not  be  useful  and  profitable  to 
the  Church  that  the  Psalms  set  forth  by  Mr.  Rouse  be  per- 
mitted to  be  publicly  sung".  The  result  of  the  Assembly's 
examination  of  Mr.  Rouse's  version  (first  printed  in  [643) 
was  to  recommend  it,  after  it  had  been  subjected  to  a  thor- 
ough revision  at  its  own  hands,  to  Parliament  as  a  suitable 
Psalm-Book  for  the  Church  (autumn  of  1045).  The  Com- 
mons accordingly  ordered  the  book  printed  in  this  revised 
form  (it  appeared  in  [646,  i.  e.f  Feb.  [647),  and  (  April  15, 
1646)  issued  an  order  establishing  it  as  the  sole  Psalm  Book 
to  be  used  in  the  Churches  of  England  and  Wales,  though 
the  House  of  Lords  never  concurred  in  this  order.  The 
Scotch  Assembly  subjected  the  book  to  a  still  further  more 
searching  revision,  and  by  an  act  passed  in  1649  (ratified  by 
the  Estates  of  Parliament  in  [650)  approved  it  in  this  new 
form  for  use  in  the  Scottish  Churches.  It  is  in  this  Scottish 
revision  alone  (printed  in  1650)  in  which  they  can  only  by 
courtesy  continue  to  bear  the  name  of  Francis  Rouse  as  their 
author,  that  these  Psalms  have  passed  into  wide  use.90 

To  the  punctual  completion  of  "the  third  part  of  uni- 
formity", that  is  to  say,  the  preparation  of  a  new  Confession 
of  Faith  for  the  contracting  churches,  the  Divines  were 
urged  by  no  immediately  pressing  necessity  in  the  situation 
of  the  Church  of  England.  The  existing  Thirty-Nine 
Articles  were  recognized  by  them  as  a  soundly  Reformed 
Creed,  the  doctrine  of  which  required  only  to  be  vindicated 
and  cleared  from  the  false  interpretations  which  the  reac- 
tionary party  was  already  endeavoring  to  foist  upon  it 
With  the  internal  needs  of  the  Church,  of  England  ;.' 
in  view,  they  might  possibly  have  felt  contented  with  a 
simple  revision  of  these  articles,  somewhat  more  thorough 
than  that  the}-  had  been  engaged  upon  early  in  their  labors.93 


90  On  the  Scottish  Psalter  see  especially  J.  Laing  in  the  Appendix  to 
his  edition  ol  Baillie's  Letters,  iii..  pp.  528-556, 

91  Compare   what   they   say   in    the    Preface   to   their    revision    of   the 
Articles   (Minutes,  pp.  541  2). 


$J2  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

The  duty  of  preparing  an  entirely  new  Creed  was  imposed 
on  them  solely  by  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  by 
which  a  common  Confession  of  Faith  was  made  one  of  the 
bases  of  the  uniformity  in  religion  which  the  contracting 
nations  had  bound  themselves  to  institute.  It  was  not  sup- 
posable  that  either  Church  would  be  content  simply  to  accept 
and  make  its  own  the  existing  Creed  of  the  other.  Indeed, 
neither  Church  possessed  a  Creed  which  it  could  seriously 
propose  to  the  other  as  suitable  to  the  purpose  or  adequate 
to  the  needs  of  the  times.  The  old  Scotch  Confession  of 
1560,  breathing  as  it  does  the  fervor  of  the  Reformation  era 
and  full  of  noble  expressions  as  it  is,  is  too  much  of  an 
occasional  document,  too  disproportionate  in  its  develop- 
ment of  its  topics,  and  too  little  complete  in  its  scope  or 
precise  in  its  phraseology  to  serve  as  the  permanent  expres- 
sion of  the  faith  of  a  great  and  comprehensive  Church; 
and  the  new  Confession  brought  forward  by  the  prelatical 
party  in  1616,  though  sound  in  doctrine  and  in  parts  finely 
wrought  out,  suffered  from  the  same  defects.  The  Scots 
themselves  recognized  that  they  had  no  Creed  which  they 
could  ask  the  English  to  adopt  as  the  common  Confession 
of  the  unified  churches,  and  therefore,  when  contemplating 
seeking  such  unification  had  it  in  mind  to  undertake  the 
preparation  of  a  new  Creed  for  the  purpose.02  There  was 
greater  reason  for  the  English  to  feel  similarly  with  re- 
gard  to  their  own  formularies.  The  Thirty-Nine  Articles 
had,  in  their  past  experience,  proved  an  inadequate  protec- 
tion against  the  most  dangerous  doctrinal  reactions.  It  was 
therefore  that  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  had  been  com- 
pelled to  put  forth,  a  half-century  earlier,  those  "orthodoxal 
assertions"  which  have  come  down  to  us  under  the  name  of 
the  Lambeth  Articles  (1505).  It  had  long  been  the  desire 
of  the  Puritans  that  these  Articles  should  be  set  alongside 
of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  as  an  authoritative  exposition 
of  their  real  meaning.  This  desire  had  been  given  expres- 
sion at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference   (1604),  and  had 

n  Baillie's  Letters,  i.,  pp.  ?>fa,  cf.  376;  ii.,  pp.  1,  2,  24. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        373 

been  met  in  the  Church  of  Ireland  by  the  incorporation  of 
the  Lambeth  Articles  along  with  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles 
into  those  Irish  Articles  of   [615,  to  which  we  may  he  sure 

the  Westminster  Divines  would  have  turned  rather  than 
to  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  had  the}-  thought  of  recom- 
mending the  simple  adoption  of  an  existing  ("reed  as  the 
trinal  standard  of  the  unified  Churches,  and  which  indeed 
they  did  make  the  basis  of  their  own  new  Creed.  Although 
the  necessity  of  a  new  Creed  was  a  result  of  the  new  condi- 
tions brought  about  by  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant, 
therefore,  these  conditions  imposed  an  absolute  necessity  for 
the  preparation  of  such  a  document;  and  as  time  passed  on 
the  demand  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  task  became  ever 
more  urgent.  The  "woeful  longsomeness"  of  the  Assem- 
bly in  all  its  work  was  bringing  the  fulfilment  of  the  engage- 
ments into  which  the  nations  had  entered  into  jeopardy, 
and  the  Scots,  who  had  paid  the  price  of  the  covenant  on  the 
faith  of  the  fulfilment  of  its  provisions,  not  unnaturally 
began  uneasily  to  urge  their  more  speedy  fulfilment.  It 
was  accordingly  under  pressure  from  Scotland  that  the 
Divines  at  length  entered  actively  upon  the  accomplishment 
of  this  "third  part  of  uniformity".93 

It  must  not  be  inferred,  however,  from  their  slowness  in 
entering  upon  it,  that  the  work  of  drawing  up  a  Confession 
of  Faith  was  one  uncongenial  to  the  Assembly  of  Divines, 
or  one  for  which  its  members  possessed  little  native  fitness 
or  had  made  little  direct  preparation:  or  one  which  pre- 
sented for  them  special  difficulties.  On  the  contrary,  there 
wa<  no  work  committed  to  them  for  which  they  were  more 
eminently  qualified,  or  in  which  they  acquitted  themselves 
with  more  distinguished  success;  nor  was  there  any  work 
committed  to  them  in  the  prosecution  of  which  they  were 
less  impeded  by  differences  among  themselves.  The  deep- 
seated  antagonisms  which  divided  them  into  irreconcil 
parties,  lay  in  the  region  of  church  organization  and  gov- 

M  Lightfoot,    xiii..    p.    305;    Bnillic.    ii.,    pp.    220,    221 — Aug.    20, 
Minutes,  p.  77   (cf.  p.  28  sq.)   of  April 


374  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

eminent.  Doctrinally  they  were  in  complete  fundamental 
harmony,  and  in  giving  expression  to  their  common  faith 
needed  only  to  concern  themselves  to  state  it  truly,  purely 
and.  with  its  polemic  edges  well-turned  out  towards  the  chief 
assailants  of  Reformed  doctrine,  in  order  to  satisfy  the 
minds  of  all.  There  were  indeed  differences  among  them  in 
doctrine,  too ;  but  these  lay  for  the  most  part  within  the 
recognized  limits  of  the  Reformed  system,  and  there  was 
little  disposition  to  press  them  to  extremes  or  to  narrow  their 
creed  to  a  party  document.;  To  the  Amyraldians,  of  whom 
there  was  a  small  but  very  active  and  well-esteemed  party  in 
the  Assembly  (Calamy,  Seaman,  Marshall,  Vines),  there 
was  denied,  to  be  sure,  the  right  to  modify  the  statement 
of  the  or  do  decretorum  so  as  to  make  room  for  their  "hypo- 
thetical universalism"  in  the  saving  work  of  Christ  (cf. 
the  Confession,  iii.  6,  viii.  5,  8).  But  the  wise  plan  was 
adopted  with  respect  to  the  points  of  difference  between  the 
Supralapsarians,  who  were  represented  by  a  number  of  the 
ablest  thinkers  in  the  Assembly  (Twisse,  Rutherford),  and 
the  Infralapsarians,  to  which  party  the  great  mass  of  the 
members  adhered,  to  set  down  in  the  Confession  only  what 
was  common  ground  to  both,  leaving  the  whole  region 
which  was  in  dispute  between  them  entirely  untouched. 
This  procedure  gives  to  the  Confession  a  peculiar  compre- 
hensiveness, while  yet  it  permits  to  its  statements  of  the  gen- 
eric doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches  a  directness,  a 
definiteness,  a  crisp  precision  and  an  unambiguous  clarity 
which  arc  attained  by  few  Confessional  documents  of  any 
age  or  creed.  In  its  Third  Chapter,  for  example,  in  which 
the  thorny  subject  of  "God's  Eternal  Decree"  falls  for 
treatment,  the  Westminster  Confession  has  attained,  by  this 
simple  method,  the  culmination  of  the  Confessional  state- 
ment of  this  high  mystery.  Everything  merely  individual 
and  as  well  everything  upon  which  parties  in  the  Reformed 
Churches  are  divided  upon  this  deep  doctrine,  is  carefully 
avoided,  while  the  whole  ground  common  to  all  recognized 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    work        375 

Reformed  parties  is  given,  if  prudent,  yet  full  and  uncom- 
promizing  statement. 
The  architectonic  principle  of  the  Westminster  Confession  ' 

is  supplied  by  the  schematization  of  the  Federal  theology, 
which  had  obtained  by  this  time  in  Britain,  as  on  the  Conti- 
nent, a  dominant  position  as  the  most  commodious  mode  of 
presenting  the  corpus  of  Reformed  doctrine  (so  c.  g.  Rol- 
lock,  Howie,  Cartwright,  Preston,  Perkins,  Ames,  Ball,  and 
cf.  Dickson's  Sum  of  Saving  Knowledge  and  Fisher's  Mar- 
row of  Modern  Divinity,  both  of  which  emanated  from  this 
period  and  were  destined  to  a  career  of  great  influence  in  the 
Scottish  theology).  The  matter  is  distributed  into  31  com- 
prehensive chapters.  After  an  opening  chapter  "Of  the  Holy 
Scripture"  as  the  source  of  divine  truth — which  is  probably 
the  finest  single  chapter  in  any  Protestant  Confession  and  is 
rivalled  in  ability  only  by  the  chapter  on  Justification  in  the 
Tridentine  Decrees  —  there  are  successively  taken  up  the 
topics  of  God  and  the  Trinity,  the  Divine  Decree,  Creation, 
Providence,  the  Fall  and  Sin,  and  then  God's  Covenant  with 
Man,  and  Christ  the  Mediator  of  the  Covenant,  while  sub- 
sequent treatment  is  given  to  the  stages  in  the  ordo  salutis 
in  the  order  first  of  the  benefits  conferred  under  the  Cove- 
nant (Vocation,  Justification,  Adoption,  Sanctification)  and 
then  of  the  duties  required  under  the  Covenant  (Faith,  Re- 
pentance, Good  Works,  Perseverance,  Assurance).  Then 
come  chapters  on  the  Law,  Christian  Liberty,  Religious 
Worship,  Oaths  and  Vows,  followed  by  others  on  the  rela- 
tions of  Church  and  State,  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments, 
and  the  rubrics  of  Eschatology.  All  the  topics  of  this  com- 
prehensive outline  are  treated  with  notable  fullness,  with  the 
avowed  object  not  merely  of  setting  forth  the  doctrine  of 
the  churches  with,  such  clearness  and  in  such  detail  as  to 
make  it  plain  to  all  that  they  held  to  the  Reformed  faith  in 
its  entirety,94  but  also  to  meet  and  exclude  the  whole  mob  of 

M  "It  being  necessary  that  the  Protestant  churches  abroad,  as  well  as 
tin-  people  of  this  kingdom  al  home,  may  have  knowledge  of  how  that 
the  Parliament  did  never  intend  to  innovate  matters  of  faith"  (Lords' 
Journal,  viii.,  p.  558  >. 


3/6  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

errors  which  vexed  the  time.95  In  the  prosecution  of  their 
work  as  practical  pastors  protecting  and  indoctrinating 
their  flocks,  the  Divines  had  acquired  an  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  prevailing  errors  and  a  remarkable  facility  in 
the  formulation  of  the  Reformed  doctrine  in  opposition  to 
them,  which  bore  rich  fruit  in  their  Confessional  labors. 
The  main  source  of  their  confessional  statements  was,  thus, 
just  the  Reformed  theology  as  it  had  framed  itself  in  their 
minds  during  their  long  experience  in  teaching  it,  and  had 
worked  itself  out  into  expression  in  the  prosecution  of  their 
task  as  teachers  of  religion  in  an  age  of  almost  unex- 
ampled religious  unrest  and  controversy.  This  work,  how- 
ever, had  not  been  done  by  them  in  isolation.  It  had  been 
done,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  full  light  of  the  whole  body  of 
Reformed  thought.  It  is  idle,  therefore,  to  inquire  whether 
they  depended  for  guidance  in  the  scholastic  statement  of 
their  doctrine  on  British  or  on  Continental  masters.  The 
distinction  was  not  present  to  their  minds ;  intercourse 
between  the  British  and  the  Continental  Reformed  was  con- 
stant, and  the  solidarity  of  their  consciousness  was  complete. 
The  vital  statement  of  Reformed  thought  ripened  every- 
where simultaneously  in  the  perfect  interaction  which  leaves 


95  An  order  sent  to  the  Divines  from  the  Houses  of  Parliament  July 
22,  1646,  urges  the  hastening  of  the  Confession,  and  Catechism,  "because 
of  the  great  use  there  may  be  of  them  in  the  kingdom,  both  for  the 
suppressing  of  errors  and  heresies,  and  the  informing  of  the  ignorance 
of  the  people".  The  Divines  themselves  say  in  a  petition  presented  to 
Parliament,  in  Oct.,  1646:  "The  Confession  being  large,  and  as  we 
conceive,  requisit  so  to  be,  to  setle  the  orthodox  doctrine  according 
to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Confession  of  the  best  Reformed  Churches, 
so  as  to  meet  with  common  errouris"  {Records  of  the  Commissions  of 
the  General  Assemblies  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  1646-7,  edited  by 
A.  F.  Mitchell  and  James  Christie,  p.  82).  Cf.  the  speech  of  George 
Gillespie  in  the  General  Assembly,  Aug.  6,  1647  (Baillie's  Letters,  ed. 
Laing,  III.,  p.  451)  :  "The  Confession  of  Faith  is  framed,  so  as  it  is  of 
great  use  against  the  floods  of  heresies  and  errors  that  overflow  that 
land:  nay,  their  intention  of  framing  it  to  meet  with  all  the  consider- 
able Errors  of  the  present  tymc,  the  Socinian,  Arminian,  Popish,  Anti- 
nomian,  Anabaptistian,  Independent  errors,  etc.  The  Confession  of 
Faith  sets  them  out,  and  refutes  them,  so  far  as  belongs  to  a  Confession." 


THE    WES  ,Y   AND   ] 


«V/ 


open  no  question  of  relative  dependence.   The  Federal  mode 

of  statement,  for  example,  came  forward  and  gradually 
became  dominant  throughout  the  Reformed  world  at  about 
the  same  time;  and  the  Westminster  Confession  owes  its 

preeminence  among  Reformed  Confessions,  not  only  in  full- 
ness but  also  in  exactitude  and  richness  of  statement,  merely 
to  the  fact  that  it  is  the  ripest  fruit  of  Reformed  creed- 
making,  the  simple  transcript  of  Reformed  thought  as  it  was 
everywhere  expounded  by  its  best  representatives  in  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century.  So  representative  is 
it  of  Reformed  theology  at  its  best,  that  often  one  might 
easily  gain  the  illusion  as  he  read  over  its  compressed  sec- 
tions  that  he  was  reading  a  condensed  abstract  of  some  such 
compend  as  Heppe's  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-reformirten 
Kirchc. 

In  giving  form  and  order  to  their  statement  of  the  Re- 
formed faith,  however,  it  was  but  natural  for  the  Westmin- 
ster Divines  to  take  their  starting  point  from  the  formu- 
laries in  most  familiar  use  among  themselves.  The  whole 
series  of  Reformed  Confessions,  as  well  as  all  the  best  Re- 
formed dogmaticians,  were  drawn  upon  to  aid  them  in  their 
definitions,  and  it  is  possible  to  note  here  and  there  traces 
of  their  use.  But  it  was  particularly  the  Irish  Articles  of 
i'm;.  which  are  believed  to  have  been  prepared  by  Usher, 
to  which  they  especially  turned.  From  these  Articles  they 
derived  the  general  arrangement  of  their  Confession,  the 
consecution  of  topics  through  at  least  its  first  half,  and  a 
large  part  of  the  detailed  treatment  of  such  capital  articles 
as  those  on  the  Holy  Scripture,  God's  Eternal  Decree,  Christ 
the  Mediator,  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. These  chapters  might  almost  be  spoken  of  as  only 
greatly  enriched  revisions  of  the  corresponding  sections  of 
the  Erish  .Articles.  Nothing,  however,  is  taken  from  the 
Irish  Articles  without  much  revision  and  enrichment,  for 
which  every  available  source  was  diligently  sought  out  and 
utilized.  There  are  traces,  minute  but  not  therefore  the  less 
convincing  or  significant,   for  example,  of  the  use   for  the 


3/8  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

perfecting  of  the  statements  of  the  Confession,  of  even  the 
Aberdeen  Articles  of  1616  and  of  the  Assembly's  own  revis- 
ion of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles.  So  minutely  was  every 
phrase  scrutinized  and  every  aid  within  reach  invoked. 

The  work  of  formulating  the  Confession  of  Faith  was 
begun  in  Committee  as  early  as  the  mid-summer  of  1644 
(Aug.  20). 9G  But  it  was  not  until  the  following  spring 
(April  25,  1645)97  that  any  of  it  came  before  the  Assembly; 
and  not  until  the  next  mid-summer  (July  7,  1645)  that  tne 
debates  upon  it  in  the  Assembly  began.  Time  and  pains 
were  lavishly  expended  on  it  as  the  work  slowly  progressed. 
By  the  middle  of  1646  the  whole  was  substantially  finished 
in  first-draft,  and  the  review  of  it  begun.  The  first  nineteen 
chapters  were  sent  up  to  the  House  of  Commons  on  Sept. 
25,  1646,  and  the  entire  work  on  Dec.  4.  Proof  texts  from 
Scripture  were  subsequently  added,  and  the  book  supplied 
with  them  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  Parliament  on  April 
29,  1647.  Immediately  on  its  completion  the  book  was  car- 
ried to  Scotland,  and  by  an  Act  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
1647,  ratified  by  the  Estates  of  Parliament  Feb.  7,  1649,  & 
was  constituted  the  official  creed  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
Meanwhile  action  on  it  dragged  in  the  English  Parliament. 
It  was  not  until  June  20,  1648,  that,  curtailed  of  chapters 
xxx  and  xxxi,  on  "Church  Censures"  and  "Synods  and 
Councils",  and  certain  passages  in  chapters  xx  ("of  Christian 
Liberty  and  Liberty  of  Conscience"),  xxiii  ("of  the  Civil 
Magistrate")  and  xxiv  ("of  Marriage  and  Divorce"),  it 
was  approved  by  Parliament  and  printed  under  the  title  of 
Articles  of  the  Christian  Religion;  and  not  until  March  5, 
1660,  after  the  interval  of  the  Protectorate,  that  it  was 
declared  by  the  so-called  "Rump  Parliament"  to  be  "the 
public  Confession  of  the  Church  of  England",  only  to  pass, 
of  course,  out  of  sight  so  far  as  the  Church  of  England  was 
concerned  in  the  immediately  succeeding  Restoration. 

The  book  was  not  one,  however,  which  could  easily  be 

M  Lightfoot,  xiii.,  p.  305 ;  Minutes,  p.  lxxxvi. 
87  Baillic,  ii.,  p.  266. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        $Jn 

relegated  to  oblivion.  Thrust  aside  by  the  established 
Church  of  England,  it  nevertheless  had  an  important  career 
before  it  even  in  England,  where  it  became  the  creed  of 
Non-Conformists.  The  Independents,  at  their  Synod,  met 
in  [658  at  the  Savoy,  adopted  it  in  the  form  in  which  it  had 
been  published  by  Parliament  (  1648),  after  subjecting  it  to 
a  revision  which  in  no  way  affected  its  substance;  and  the 
Baptists,  having  still  further  revised  it  and  adjusted  it  to  fit 
their  particular  views  on  Baptism,  adopted  it  in  1677.  By 
both  of  the  bodies  it  was  transmitted  to  their  affiliated  co- 
religionists in  America,  where  it  worked  out  for  itself  an 
important  history.98  It  was  of  course  also  transmitted,  in 
its  original  form,  by  the  Scotch  church  to  the  churches,  on 
both  sides  of  the  sea,  deriving  their  tradition  from  it,  and 
thus  it  has  become  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presby- 
terian Churches  of  the  British  dependencies  and  of  America. 
In  the  latter  it  has  been  adapted  to  their  free  position  rela- 
tively to  the  state  by  means  of  certain  alterations  in  the 
relevant  chapters,  and  in  some  of  the  churches  it  lias  been 
subjected  to  some  other  revisions.  It  has  thus  come  about 
that  the  Westminster  Confession  has  occupied  a  position  of 
very  wide-spread  influence.  It  has  been  issued  in  something 
like  200  editions  in  Great  Britain  and  in  about  100  more  in 
America.00  It  was  rendered  into  German  as  early  as  1648 
(reprinted,  somewhat  modified,  in  Bockel's  Bekenntnis- 
schriften  der  evangelisch-reform.  Kirche,  1847):  and  into 
Latin  in  1656  (often  reprinted,  e.  g.  Xiemeyer's  Collcctio 
Conff,  appendix,  1840,  and  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom, 
1878);  and  into  Gaelic  in  1725  (often  reprinted).  More 
recently  it  has  been  translated  into  Hindustani  (  1842), 
Urdu    (1848),   German    (1858),    Siamese    (1873),    Portu- 


99  Cf.  Williston  Walker,  The  Creeds  and  Platforms  of  Congregation- 
alism, New  York,  [893;  CJnderhill,  Confessions  of  Faith  in  Illustra 
of  the  History  of  the  Baptist  Church  of  England  in   the   \J'.h   Century, 
London,   [854;   The  Pre  and  Reformed  Review,  Philadelphia, 

[902,  v>  1.  xiii.,  pp.  380  sq. 

99  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  Oct.,   1901,  pp.  616  sq. ;   Jan., 
1902.  pp.  60  sq. ;  Oct.,  1902,  pp.  551  sq. 


380  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

gese  (1876),  Spanish  (1880  and  again  1896-7),  Japanese 
(1880),  Chinese  (1881),  Arabic  (1883),  Gujurati  (1888), 
French  (1891),  as  well  as  into  Benga,  Persian  and  Korean 
(as  yet  in  MS.).  It  thus  exists  to-day  in  some  seventeen 
languages100  and  is  professed  by  perhaps  a  more  numerous 
body  than  any  other  Protestant  creed.101 

The  labors  of  the  Divines  upon  the  "fourth  part  of  uni- 
formity'', that  is  to  say,  in  the  preparation  of  a  Catechism 
for  the  unified  churches,  reached  a  similarly  felicitous  result. 
The  Westminster  Assembly  was  eminently  an  assembly  of 
catechists,  trained  and  practiced  in  the  art.102  Not  only 
were  its  members  pupils  of  masters  in  this  work,  but  not 
fewer  than  a  dozen  of  themselves  had  published  Catechisms 
which  were  in  wide  use  in  the  churches  (Twisse,  White, 
Gataker,  Gouge,  Wilkinson,  Wilson,  Walker,  Palmer, 
Cowdrey,  Sedgewick,  Byfield,  and  possibly  Newcomen, 
Lyford,  Hedges,  Foxcroft).  A  beginning  was  made  at  a 
comparatively  early  date  towards  drawing  up  their  Cate- 
chism; but  this  labor  was  successfully  completed  only  after 
all  the  other  work  of  the  Assembly  had  been  accomplished. 
In  the  earlier  notices  of  work  on  the  Catechism  it  is  not 
always  easy  to  distinguish  between  references  to  the  prepa- 
ration of  the  Directory  for  Catechising  for  the  Directory 
for  Worship  and  references  to  the  preparation  of  the  Cate- 
chism itself.  But  as  early  as  November  21,  1644,  Baillie 
speaks  of  "the  Catechise"  as  already  drawn  up;  and  on  the 
26th  of  December  following,  as  nearly  agreed  on  in  private 
in  its  first  draft.  And  we  learn  from  the  Minutes  (p.  13) 
that  on  December  2,  1644,  a  committee  was  appointed  "for 
hastening  the  Catechism",  and  that  this  committee  was 
augmented  on  February  7th  following  (p.  48).  On  August 
5,  1645,  tne  material  of  this  Catechism  was  under  debate 


100  Cf.  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  April,  1902,  pp.  254  sq. 

""  Cf.  the  statistics  in  the  Art.  Puritaner  mid  Presbylerianer,  in 
Herzog8.  Also  J.  N.  Ogilvie:  The  Presbyterian  Churches  (1897); 
Henry  Cowan:    The  Influence  of  the  Scottish  Church  on  Christendom. 

102  Cf.  Mitchell,  Baird  Lectures  on  The  Westminster  Confession,  Ed. 
2,  p.  419,  and  the  passage  quoted  from  Ileppe,  p.  81. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK        381 

in  the  Assembly  itself;  and  by  August  20  it  would  seem  to 
have  been  so  far  nearing  completion  that  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  "draw  up  the  whole  draught"  of  it.  Noth- 
ing, however,  came  of  this  work.  It  appears,  in  effect, 
that  one  or  two  false  starts  were  made  upon  the  Cate- 
chism before  the  Divines  got  down  to  their  really  productive 
work  upon  it.  After  midsummer  of  1  045  we  hear  nothing 
about  the  Catechism  for  a  year,  when,  writing  Jul}'  14, 
[646,  Baillie  tells  us  that  all  that  had  been  hitherto  accom- 
plished was  set  aside  and  a  new  beginning  made.  "We 
made,  long  agoe",  he  writes,  "a  prettie  progress  in  the 
Catechise;  but  falling  on  rubbes  and  l<>no-  debates,  it  was 
laid  aside  till  the  Confession  wes  ended,  with  resolution  to 
have  no  matter  in  it  but  what  wes  expressed  in  the  Con 
sion,  which  should  not  be  debated  over  againe  in  the  Cate- 
chise." 

Accordingly,  the  Confession  being  now  finished  and  in 
process  of  review,  the  new  Catechism10,0'  was  taken  up 
(September  11),  and  from  September  14.  [646,  to  January 
4.  1 047,  was  rapidly  passed  through  the  Assembly  up  to 
the  questions  which  dealt  with  the  Fourth  Commandment. 
This,  however,  was  only  another  false  start.  In  the  prose- 
cution of  this  work,  the  Assembly  became  convinced  that 
it  was  attempting  an  impossible  feat;  as  the  Scottish  Com- 
missioners express  it,104  it  was  essaying  "to  dress  up  milk 
and  meat  both  in  one  dish".  It  therefore  again  called  a 
halt  and  "recomitted  the  work,  that  tuo  formes  of  Cate- 
chisme  may  be  prepared,  one  more  exact  an*!  comprehensive, 
another  more  easie  and  short  for  new  beginners".105  Re- 
commencing on   this   new   basis,   the   "Larerer   Catechism" 


108  An  order  from  the  Commons  to  hasten  the  Catechism  had  come  in 
on  July  22,  i' 

104  Writing   to   the   Commission   of   the   General   Assembly.      See    the 
published  records  of  the  Commission,  i.  p.  187. 

mDo.:    cf.  Minutes  for  Jan.  14.  where  the  order  for  preparing  the  two 
Catechisms   is   noted   and   it    is   added   that    in    the   preparation    1  f   them, 
eve  is  to  he  had  "to  th<>  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  matt 
Catechism  already  begun".    i'\.  also  Gillespie's  account  in  his 
the  General  Assembly,  August,  \^\7  (Baillie's  Letters,  iii..  p.  472 


7HI 

:"   :-  it-:  i:e:     -  .-.;"■  :  -    : :_-    mi  -  ii  ±-  -:::  ;- 

7  err 7:«er 

-  _  *     T 

_-    "  . 

-     ?..-. 

::: 

•-'-::-:»  5         "       7  / 

z  the  A  -   7    ' 

'   1 
-7    -  _  -  -    ."  Lrer~g"" 

-  .        "    - 

-  -         -      -  -  -  -  - 

-  7  7  :_rl:irr_±-  - 

7  -  -  ~c«hrd-Dc      - 

:r:- 

- 

■  '     IT-TV- 


i 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AM)    [TS    WORK        383 

periods,  but  also  by  the  obvious  independence  of  the  W 
minster  Divines  in  giving  form  to  their  catechetical  formu- 
laries, and  their  express  determination  to  derive  the  mate- 
rials for  them,  as  far  as  possible,  from  their  own  Confession 
of  Faith.  The  contents  of  the  first  Catechism  taken  in  hand 
by  them — the  Catechism  of  1644-1045 —  have  not  been 
transmitted  to  us.  We  may  infer,  however,  from  the 
meagre  details  which  have  found  record,  that  it  was  proba- 
bly based  on  the  Catechism  of  Herbert  Palmer,  published 
in  1640  under  the  title  of  An  Endeavour  of  Making  Chris- 
tian Religion  Easie  (5th  ed..  1645).  The  matter  of  the 
second  Catechism  prepared  by  the  Assembly — that  of  the 
autumn  of  1646 — is  preserved  for  us  in  the  Minutes,  so  far 
as  it  was  debated  and  passed  by  the  Assembly.106  It  pro- 
fessedly derives  its  material  as  far  as  possible  from  the 
Assembly's  Confession  of  Faith,  but  as  it  covers  in  large 
part  ground  not  gone  over  in  the  Confession,  much  of  its 
material  must  have  an  independent  origin.  Palmer's  Cate- 
chism still  seems  to  underlie  it,  but  supplies  no  material  for 
its  exposition  of  the  Commandments;  and  the  influence  of 
the  manuals  of  Usher  seems  discernible.  Much  the  same 
must  be  said  of  the  sources  of  the  Catechisms  which  the 
Assembly  completed,  "Larger"  and  "Shorter".  The  doc- 
trinal portion  of  the  "Larger  Catechism"  is  very  much  a 
catechetical  recension  of  the  Assembly's  Confession  of 
Faith;  while  in  its  ethical  portion  fits  exposition  of  the  Ten 
1  mmandments)  it  seems  to  derive  most  from  Usher's  Body 
of  Divinity  and  Nicholl's  and  Ball's  Catechisms:  and  in  its 
exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  go  back  ultimately 
through  intermediary  manuals  to  William  Perkins'  treatise 
on  the  Lord's  Prayer.  The  "Shorter  Catechism"  is  3 
original  and  individual  in  its  form,  that  the  question  of  its 
sources  seems  insoluble,  if  not  impertinent.  It  in  the  main 
follows  the  outline  of  the  "Larger  Catechism";  but   in  its 

1M  It  has  been  extracted  and  printed  in  consecutive  form  by  YV. 
Carruthers  in  his  The  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westminster  Divines, 
.    .    .    with  Historical  Account  and  Bibliography  (London,  1807  I . 


3S4  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

modes  of  statement  it  now  and  again  varies  from  it  and  in 
some  of  these  variations  reverts  to  the  Catechism  of  the 
autumn  of  1646.  In  their  striking-  opening  questions  both 
Catechisms  go  back  ultimately  to  the  model  introduced  by 
Calvin,  possibly  but  certainly  not  probably  through  the  inter- 
mediation of  Leo  Judae. 107  Perhaps  of  all  earlier  Catechisms 
the  little  manual  of  Ezekiel  Rogers  most  closely  resembles 
the  "Shorter  Catechism"  in  its  general  plan  and  order:  but 
there  is  little  detailed  resemblance  between  the  two.  After 
alfsaid,  the  "Shorter  Catechism"  is  a  new  creation,  and 
must  be  considered  in  structure  and  contents  alike  the  con- 
tribution to  the  catechetical  art  of  the  Westminster  Divines 

r  themselves.  I  Xo  other  Catechism  can  be  compared  with  it 
in  its  concise,  nervous,  terse  exactitude  of  definition,  or  in 
its  severely  logical  elaboration ;  and  it  gains  these  admirable 
qualities  at  no  expense  to  its  freshness  or  fervor,  though 
perhaps  it  can  scarcely  be  spoken  of  as  marked  by  childlike 

,  simplicity.  J  Although  set  forth  as  "milk  for  babes"  and 
designed  to  stand  by  the  side  of  the  "Larger  Catechism" 
as  an  "easie  and  short"  manual  of  religion  "for  new  be- 
ginners", it  is  nevertheless  governed  by  the  principle  (as 
one  of  its  authors — Seaman — phrased  it),  "that  the  great- 
est care  should  be  taken  to  frame  the  answer  not  according 
to  the  model  of  the  knowledge  the  child  hath,  but  according 
to  that  the  child  ought  to  have".  Its  peculiarity,  in  contrast 
with  the  "Larger  Catechism"  (and  the  Confession  of 
Faith),  is  the  strictness  with  which  its  contents  are  confined 
to  the  very  quintessense  of  religion  and  morals,  to  the 
positive  truths  and  facts  which  must  be  known  for  their 
own  behoof  by  all  who  would  fain  be  instructed  in  right 
belief   and   practice.1"^      All   purely   historical   matter,    and 

1,17  Leo  Judae:  "Q.  Die.  sodes,  ad  quern  finem  homo  creatus  est? 
R.  Ut  optimi  maximi  ac  sapientissimi  Dei  Creatoris  majestatem  ac 
bonitatem  agnoscamus,  tandemque  illo  aeternum  fruamur." 

\ccordingly  the  course  of  salvation   alone   is   traced   in   questions 

20-38  with   no  reference  whatever  to  the  career  or  end  of  those  not 

rlasting  life.     The  theory  is  that  the  catechumen  is  inter  - 

ht  to  be,  exclusively  in  what  has  been  done  for  him  and 

expect.     This  is   the  account   to  give  of  the  fact  which 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    Work        385 

much  more,  all  controversial  matter — everything  which  can 
minister  merely  to  curiosity,  however  chastened — is  rigidly 
excluded.  Only  that  is  given  which,  in  the  judgment  of  its 
framers,  is  directly  required  for  the  Christian's  instruction 
in  what  he  is  to  believe  concerning  God  and  what  God 
requires  of  him.  It  is  a  pure  manual  of  personal  religion  / 
and  practical  morality. 

To  whom  among  the  Westminster  Divines  we  more  espe- 
cially owe  these  Catechetical  manuals, — and  particularly  the 
"Shorter  Catechism", — we  have  no  means  of  determining. 
It  is,  of  course,  easy  to  draw  out  from  the  records  of  the 
Assembly  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  committees  to 
which  the  preparation  of  the  materials  for  them  was  en- 
trusted. But  this  seems  to  carry  us  a  very  little  way  into 
the  problem.  On  the  whole,  Herbert  Palmer,  who  bore  the 
reputation,  as  Baillie  tells  us,  of  being  "the  best  catechist 
in  England",  appears  to  have  been  the  leading  spirit  in  the 
Assembly  in  all  matters  concerned  with  catechetics :  and 
he  apparently  served  on  all  important  committees  busied 
with  the  Catechisms  up  to  his  death,  which  occurred,  how- 
ever, (Aug.  13,  1647)  before  the  "Shorter  Catechism" 
seems  to  have  been  seriously  taken  in  hand.  We  have  no 
direct  evidence  to  connect  him  with  the  authorship  of  this 
Catechism,  only  the  first — evidently  a  purely  preliminary — 
report  upon  which  he  was  privileged  to  be  the  medium  of 
making,  and  the  contents  of  which  certainly  show  much  less 
resemblance  to  those  of  his  own  manual  than  there  is  reason 
to  believe  was  exhibited  by  the  earliest  Catechism  under- 
taken by  the  Assembly.  1  nere  is  still  less  reason,  of  course. 
to  connect  with  its  composition  the  name  of  Dr.  John  Wal- 
lis,  Palmer's  pupil  and  friend,  who  attended  the  committee 
charged   with   its   review   as   its   secretarv    (from    Nov.    9. 

Strange  to  some  (see  Mitchell,  Haird  Lectures,  p.  450)  that  there 
is  no  reference  here  to  the  future  retribution  of  the  lost.  This  is  only 
a  portion  of  a  larger  fact.  The  Catechism  proceeds  on  the  presumption 
that  the  catechumen  is  a  child  of  God  and  skives  only  what  the  child  of 
God  needs  to  know  of  the  dealings  of  God  with  him  and  the  duties  he 
owes  to  God. 


386  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

1647),  and  whose  mathematical  genius  has  been  thought 
to  express  itself  in  the  clear  and  logical  definitions  which 
characterize  the  document.      Dr.   Wallis'  close  connection 
with  the  "Shorter  Catechism",  in  the  minds  of  the  contem- 
porary and  following  generations,  appears  to  be  mainly  due 
to  the  publication  by  him  at  once  on  its  appearance  (1648) 
of  an  edition  of  it  broken  up  into  subordinate  questions 
according  to  the  model  of  the  treatise  of  his  friend  and 
patron,  Palmer.     Still  less  have  we  evidence  to  connect  the 
Scotch  commissioners  directly  with  the  composition  of  the 
"Shorter  Catechism".     The  record  may  give  us  reason  to 
infer  that  the  earliest  Catechism  undertaken  by  the  Assem- 
bly may   have   been   in  the   first   instance   drafted   by   the 
Scots.109     But  we  lack  even  such  faint  suggestions  in  the 
case  of  the   Catechisms  which  were   ultimately  prepared. 
Indeed,  these  Catechisms,  and  especially  the  "Shorter",  are 
precisely  the  portion  of  the  Assembly's  constructive  work, 
in   the   composition   of   which   the    Scotch    Commissioners 
appear  to  have  had  the  least  prominent  part.     Henderson 
had  died  before  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  finished ;  Bail- 
lie  left  immediately  after  its  completion;  Gillespie  in  the 
midst  of  the  work  on  the  "Larger  Catechism" ;  while  Ruth- 
erford, who  alone  remained  until  the  "Shorter  Catechism" 
was  under  way,  judged  that  his  presence  until  the  comple- 
tion of  the  "Larger  Catechism"  justified  the  declaration  that 
the  Scots  had  lent  their  aid  to  the  accomplishment  of  all  "the 
4  things  mentioned  in  the  Covenant",110  which  is  as  much  as 


109  How  far  this  first  draft  may  be  represented  by  The  New  Catechism 
according  to  the  forms  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  published  by  the 
Scots  in  1644  (reprinted  in  Mitchell's  Catechisms  of  the  Second  Refor- 
mation, 1886)  we  have  no  means  of  determining:  but  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  if  this  document  was  prepared  by  the  Scots  as  a  draft 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Assembly,  it  was  much  departed  from  in 
the  Assembly's  work,  which  seems  rather  to  have  taken  its  start  from 
Palmer's  Catechism. 

110  Minutes,  Oct.  15,  1647.  Before  he  actually  took  his  leave  (Nov.  9), 
the  Shorter  Catechism,  which  ran  rapidly  forward,  was  on  the  point  of 
completion.  Sec  the  Minutes  for  Nov.  8,  when  the  Commandments, 
Lord's  Prayer  and  Creed  were  ordered  to  be  added  to  the  Catechism. 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK       387 

ay  that  he  looked  upon  the  completion  of  the  "Shorter 
Catechism"  as  largely  a  matter  of  routine  work  unessential 
to  the  main  task  of  the  Assembly.111  It  does  not  follow,  of 
course,  that  the  Scots  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  composi- 
tion of  the  "Shorter  Catechism".  We  do  not  know  how 
fully  its  text  had  heen  worked  out  before  any  of  it  was 
brought  before  the  Assembly,  or  how  hard  it  rested  on 
previous  work  done  in  committee  or  in  the  Assembly,  or  to 
whom  the  first  essays  in  its  composition  were  due.  Of 
course,  the  Scots  served  with  all  committees  up  to  the 
moment  of  their  departure,  and  may  have  had  much  to  do 
with  the  framing  of  the  drafts  of  documents  with  which 
we  have  no  explicit  evidence  to  connect  their  names.  But 
they  appear  to  have  had  less  to  do  with  giving  the  Cate- 
chisms their  final  form  than  was  the  case  with  the  other 
documents  prepared  by  the  Divines  for  the  use  of  the 
united  churches.  The  Catechisms  come  to  us  preeminently 
as  the  work  of  the  Assembly,  and  we  are  without  data  to 
enable  us  to  point  to  any  individual  or  individuals  to  whom 
we  can  confidently  assign  their  characteristic  features. 

With  the  completion  of  the  Catechisms,  the  work  of  the 
Assembly  under  the  engagement  of  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  was  done.  The  Scots,  as  we  have  seen,  caused 
a  minute  to  this  effect  to  be  entered  upon  the  records  of  the 
Assembly  (October  15,  1647),  reciting  that  some  of  them 
had  given  assistance  to  the  Divines  throughout  the  whole 
of  their  labors  looking  to  uniformity.  And  on  the  return 
to  Scotland  of  Rutherford,  the  last  of  the  Scots  to  leave 
London,   the   Commission    of   the   General    Assembly    dis- 


111  It  would  seem  that  the  Shorter  Catechism  was  not  seriously  taken 
in  hand  until  October  [9,  1647,  and  that  as  late  as  Sept.  jo,  [647,  it  could 
still  seem  doubtful  in  Scotland  whether  the  Divines  would  no;  content 
themselves  with  the  Larger  Catechism.  On  that  date  the  Commission 
at  Edinburgh,  acting  on  the  assumption  that  there  might  be  no  Sh 
Catechism   prepared   by  the   Divines,  appointed  a  COmmitl  own 

to  draw  up  a  primary  Catechism  for  use  in  Scotland.     (See  Record 
the  Commissions  of  the  General  Assemblies,  etc.,  edited  by  Mitchell  and 
Christie.  I.,  p.  306.)    Tin  Assembly  of  Divines  was  already  disintegrat- 
ing and  it  was  hard  to  get  1  r  a  quorum. 


388  THE    PRINCETON"    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

patched  a  letter  to  the  Assembly  of  Divines  (November  26, 
1647)' — with  whom  it  joins  in  the  address  "the  Ministers 
of  London,  and  all  the  other  well-affected  brethren  of  the 
Ministrie  of  England" — which  accurately  reflects  the  state 
of  affairs  relatively  to  the  work  of  the  Divines  at  the  end  of 
the  year  1647.  ^n  tms  letter  the  Scots  express  their  unwav- 
ering purpose  to  abide  by  the  Covenant  they  had  sworn,  and 
exhort  their  English  brethren  to  do  the  same,  noting  at  the 
same  time  the  difficulties  they  saw  besetting  the  way,  and 
recommending  in  view  of  them  diligence  in  the  fear  of  God. 
In  pursuance  of  its  covenant  engagement,  the  letter  goes  on 
to  declare,  the  Scottish  Church  had  approved  and  ratified 
the  Directory  for  Worship  "being  about  tuo  yeares  agoe 
agreed  upon  by  the  Assemblies  and  Parliaments  of  both 
kingdomes",  and  the  Doctrinal  Part  of  Church  Govern- 
ment— that  is,  the  Propositions  for  Church  Government  of 
1644 — "agreed  upon  by  the  reverend  and  learned  Assemblie 
of  Divines" ;  and  had  also  approved  the  Confession  of 
Faith  "as  sound  and  orthodox  for  the  matter,  and  agreed 
unto  on  their  part,  that  it  be  a  part  of  the  Uniformity,  and 
a  Confession  of  Faith  for  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  the  three 
kingdomes";  while  it  purposed  to  consider  and  expected 
to  approve  the  Directory  of  Church  Government,  the  Cate- 
chism and  the  new  Paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  at  the  next 
Assembly,  to  meet  in  the  summer  of  1648.  From  this  state- 
ment we  perceive  how  far  Scotland  had  outrun  England  in 
fulfilling  the  terms  of  their  mutual  engagement,  and  how 
uneasy  the  northern  kingdom  was  becoming  over  the  ever 
growing  prospect  that  they  would  never  be  fully  met  in 
England.  Meanwhile  all  the  work  of  the  Divines  for  uni- 
formity was  done;  there  remained  only  the  completion  of 
the  proof-texts  for  the  Catechisms,  with  the  completion  of 
which  their  entire  function,  as  enlarged  and  given  interna- 
tional significance  by  the  provisions  of  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant,  was  performed.  We  find  the  Assembly, 
therefore,  on  the  day  on  which  Rutherford  took  his  leave 
of  it,  appointing  a  committee  "to  consider  of  what  is  fit 


THI-:    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AND    ITS    WORK       389 

to  be  done  when  the  Catechism  is  finished"  I  November  9, 

1647).  For  a  time  the  Assembly  turned  back  to  the  contro- 
versies of  the  great  days  of  its  past,  with  the  Independents 

and  the  Erastians;  to  its  responses  to  the  jus  divinum 
queries;112  and  especially  to  its  answers  to  the  reasons  of  the 
Dissenting  brethren  against  the  Presbyterian  system  of  gov- 
ernment, which  it  now  prepared  for  publication  (1648,  and 
again  1652).  It  had  ceased  to  have  any  further  function, 
however,  than  that  of  a  standing  advisory  board  to  Parlia- 
ment ;  and  as  the  significance  of  Parliament  decreased 
("Pride's  purge",  December  6,  1648,  was  the  precursor  of 
the  end,  which  came  in  1653)  ^ts  own  importance  necessarily 
fell  with  it.  It  became  increasingly  difficult  to  get  a  quorum 
together;  and  its  work  dwindled  into  the  mere  task  of  an 
examining  committee  for  vacant  charges,  until  it  passed  out 
of  existence  with  the  Parliament  from  which  it  derived  its 
being. 

What  the  Divines  could  do  for  the  institution  of  the  pro- 
posed uniformity  of  religion  in  the  three  kingdoms,  wre  see, 
then,  had  been  done  and  well  done,  by  the  beginning  of 
1648.  The  institution  of  uniformity  on  the  basis  formu- 
lated by  them  did  not  lie  within  their  powers.  That  was  a 
matter  of  treaty  engagement  between  the  two  nations.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Scotch  were  in  no  way  backward  in  the 
fulfilment  of  their  part  of  the  engagement.  The  same  can- 
not be  said  for  England.  The  political  situation  was  very 
different  at  the  opening  of  1648  from  what  it  had  been  in 
midsummer  of  1643;  and  Parliament  was  now  perhaps  little 
inclined,  and,  to  do  it  justice,  was  certainly  little  able,  to 
carry  out  all  it  had  felt  constrained  to  promise  five  years 
before.113    The  rise  of  Independency  to  political  power  and 

113  These  queries  had  been  laid  aside  "till  the  Confession  and  Cate- 
chise  were  ended"    (Baillie,  Letters,  ii..  pp.  378,  thai    to  return 

m  at  this  poinl  was  1  nly  to  carry  1  ul  a  1'  ng  determined  plan. 

113  What  was  done  by  Parliament,  however,  was  not  little,  though  it 
was  d<  ne  slowly  and  proved  net  lasting.    '  v.-  ;:  is  sketch    '  by 

a    not    very    friendly    hand:     "T!  1640-60    v. 

complete  and  drastic  revi  luti<  n  which  the  Church  ol  England 
unden:'  ne.    Its  whole  structure  was  ruthlessly  demolished— Episcopacy, 


390  THE    PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    REVIEW 

the  usurpation  of  the  army  were  the  supersession  of  the 
Covenant  and  all  its  solemn  obligations :  and  after  the 
usurpation  came  ultimately,  not  the  restoration  of  Parlia- 
mentary government  and  Presbyterianism,  but  the  restora- 
tion of  monarchy  and  prelacy.  The  dream  of  an  enforced 
uniformity  of  religion  in  the  three  kingdoms  on  a  Presby- 
terian basis,  under  the  inspiration  of  which  the  Divines  had 
done  their  constructive  work,  had  vanished ;  and  so  far  as 
the  successful  issue  of  their  labors  depended  on  alliance 
with  a  friendly  state,  their  work,  as  regards  England  at 
least,  had  failed.  But  this  alliance  was  not  the  strength  of 
the  Assembly,  but  its  weakness.  Its  work  was  not  in  char- 
acter political,  but  religious ;  and  its  product  needed  no  im- 
position by  the  civil  power  to  give  it  vitality.  Whatever 
real  authority  the  formularies  it  had  framed  possessed, 
was  inherent  in  them  as  sound  presentations  of  truth,  not 
derived  from  extraneous  sources.  And  by  the  inherent 
power  of  their  truth  they  have  held  sway  and  won  a  way 
for  themselves  to  the  real  triumph  of  the  voluntary  adhesion 


the  Spiritual  Courts,  Deans  and  Chapters,  Convocation,  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  and  the  Psalter;  the  lands 
of  the  Bishops  and  of  the  Deans  and  Chapters  were  sold,  and  the  Cathe- 
drals were  purified  or  defiled.  On  the  clean-swept  ground  an  entirely 
novel  Church  system  was  erected.  In  place  of  Episcopal  Church 
Government  a  Presbyterian  organization  was  introduced,  and  a  Presby- 
terian system  of  ordination.  For  the  Spiritual  Courts  were  substituted 
Presbyterian  Assemblies  (Parochial,  Classical  and  Provincial),  acting 
with  a  very  real  censorial  jurisdiction,  but  in  final  subordination  to  a 
parliamentary  committee  sitting  at  Westminster.  Instead  of  the  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles  the  Confession  of  Faith  was  introduced,  and  the  Directory 
in  place  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  New  Catechisms  and  a  new 
metrical  version  were  prepared,  a  parochial  survey  of  the  whole 
country  was  carried  out,  and  extensive  reorganization  of  parishes 
effected.  Finally,  the  equivalent  of  a  modern  ecclesiastical  commission 
(or  let  us  say  of  Queen  Anne's  Bounty  Scheme)  was  invented,  a  body 
of  trustees  was  endowed  with  considerable  revenues  for  the  purpose 
of  augmenting  poor  livings,  and  for  years  the  work  of  this  ecclesiastical 
charity  and  reorganization  scheme  was  earnestly  pursued.  There  is 
hardly  a  parallel  in  history  to  such  a  constitutional  revolution  as  this." 
.  .  .  (W.  A.  Shaw,  A  History  of  the  English  Church  during  .  .  . 
1640-/660,  T.,  pp.  vii.-viii.). 


THE    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY    AM)    ITS    WORK         39I 


°f  Multitudes  of  Christian  men.  It  is  honor  enough  for 
the  \  Westminster  Assembly  that  it  has  provided  this  multi- 
tude cc  voluntary  adherents  with  a  practicable  platform  of 
representative  government  on  Scriptural  lines,  and  a  sober 
and  sanv  directory  of  worship  eminently  spiritual  in  tone; 
and  above  ^  with  the  culminating  Reformed  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  a  Catechism  preeminent  for  the  exactness  of 
its  definition.  0f  faith  and  the  faithfulness  of  its  ethical 
precepts. 

Princeton.  Benjamin  B.  Warfield. 


ww  ,,^.v  ^  ^cket  both 

pride  and  shame  and  venture  to  offer  to  readers  of  this 
Review  anything  so  'popular'  as  the  purely  descriptive  part 
of  this  paper.  I  desire  to  add  by  way  of  farther  explana- 
tion that  the  article  is  mainly  expository,  not  critical,  and 
that  in  writing  it  in  the  first  instance  for  another  public  I 
was  guided  by  Huxley's  maxim  for  popular  lecturing  and 
presupposed  nothing  but  total  ignorance. 

Prof.  Sorley's  happy  reference  to  Nietzsche2  as  "the 
enfant  terrible  of  modern  thought",  is  the  best  characteriza- 
tion of  him  I  know.  He  makes  ill-timed  and  shocking  re- 
marks, he  has  no  reverence  for  etiquette  and  convention,  he 
makes  awkward  enquiries  and  asks  embarrasing  questions. 
He  will  touch  the  ark  without  fear,  and  without  reverence 
penetrate  into  the  holy  of  holies.     He  will  not  be  repressed 


1  Beyond  Good  and  Evil.  Prelude  to  a  Philosophy  of  the  Future. 
By  Fricdrich  Nietzsche.  Authorized  translation  by  Helen  Zimmern. 
New  York,  The  Macmillan  Company,  1907. 

J Recent  Tendencies  in  Ethics,  p.  32. 


